Dolby International v Beko Germany (CFI, 14 August 2025)
| Date | 14 August 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_4256/2025 · ORD_33973/2025 |
| Parties | Dolby 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.
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
- Practical point: attaching the draft pleading to an application under Rule 36 RoP allows the judge rapporteur to admit it without a further period and to close the written procedure at once.
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
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
Parties
- claimantDolby International AB35 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
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
EP 3 605 534mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Dolby International v Beko Germany (CFI, 18 March 2026) cited in this record
- Scandit v Hand Held Products (CoA, 1 November 2024) cited in this record
- Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports Group (CFI, 30 October 2024) cited in this record
- Hartmann Packaging v Omni-Pac Ekco (CFI, 4 March 2025) cited in this record
- TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik v IPG Laser (CFI, ORD_35948/2025, 12 September 2025) cites this decision
Patents and standards
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.