Opens in a new tab

Dolby International v Beko Germany (CFI, 14 August 2025)

Date14 August 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionDüsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_4256/2025 · ORD_33973/2025
PartiesDolby International AB

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By procedural order of 14 August 2025, issued in the joined infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 3 605 534 (UPC_CFI_135/2024 and UPC_CFI_477/2024, App_4256/2025), the Düsseldorf Local Division allowed Dolby International to file a further written pleading on the FRAND defence raised by Beko Germany and Arçelik. The pleading, already attached to the application of 27 January 2025, is admitted as filed and the written procedure closes when the period expires. The order shows how Rule 36 RoP is used to restore balance in the pleadings when a defence is raised late.

Question

May the claimant obtain a further pleading on a FRAND defence first raised in the statement of defence and developed in the rejoinder?

Decision

Yes. The application, made before the written procedure was due to close, is reasoned: Dolby argued that each party should have two pleadings on the FRAND defence and that the rejoinder of 27 December 2024 contained new matter, in particular on market dominance (paragraphs 1 and 2). The judge granted leave in the exercise of discretion, on grounds of fairness, efficiency and the right to be heard: the defendants are not disadvantaged, the proceedings are not delayed and Rule 9.2 RoP protects them against late submissions (paragraph 3). The period was set to expire on 14 August 2025, with no new upload needed (paragraph 4), and the written procedure is deemed closed on its expiry (Rule 36, second sentence, RoP).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure
Rules 9.2 and 36
Case law cited
Ortovox v Mammut, Düsseldorf Local Division, 30 October 2024, Grundfos v Hefei, Düsseldorf Local Division, 26 February 2025, Hartmann v Omni-Pac, Düsseldorf Local Division, 4 March 2025, Scandit v Hand Held Products, Court of Appeal, 1 November 2024

Related decisions

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.


Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Dolby est autorisée à déposer, au 14 août 2025, un mémoire sur l'exception FRAND, déjà joint à sa demande, et la procédure écrite est close à l'expiration du délai.
Appeal
No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 605 534
Audio decoding with selective post-filtering
recorded proprietor: Dolby International AB
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 11 other decision(s): Dolby International v Beko Germany (CFI, 18 March 2026) · Dolby International v Optoma Deutschland (CFI, 28 July 2026) · Beko Germany v Dolby International (CoA, UPC_CoA_77/2026, 28 July 2026 · Vereenigde Octrooibureaux v Dolby International (CFI, 24 July 2026) · Dolby International v Beko Germany (CFI, 14 October 2025) · Dolby International v Beko Germany (CFI, 15 September 2025) · Dolby International v Epson France (CFI, 27 May 2025) · Dolby International v Beko Germany (CFI, 9 April 2025)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.