Dolby International v CPYou (CFI, UPC_CFI_1536/2025, 1 May 2026, doc. 3)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By procedural order of 1 May 2026, the judge-rapporteur of The Hague Local Division, in Dolby International’s infringement action against CPYou and seven Acer companies based on EP 3 079 153, which relates to the Opus audio codec, admitted the intervention of Vectis IP, administrator of the Opus pool, in support of Dolby, held admissible Acer’s counterclaim for rate-setting against Vectis, ordered production of comparable licences and set up a two-tier confidentiality regime. The order matters for FRAND litigation: access to comparable licences is available even where the patentee has made no FRAND declaration.

Question

Can a pool administrator intervene and be targeted by a rate-setting counterclaim, and can the defendant obtain disclosure of the pool’s licences where the patentee has made no FRAND declaration?

Decision

The intervention, which was unopposed, was admitted under Rules 313 and 314 RoP, Art. 47 UPCA limits who may bring an action, not who may intervene, and since an intervener is treated as a party (Rule 315.4 RoP) the counterclaim may be directed against it, whether Vectis holds a dominant position being a matter for the merits (paragraphs 2 to 4). Active case management powers allow production of licences to be ordered in order to test FRAND compliance, Huawei v ZTE applying by analogy. Only comparable licences are covered, but a pool may not cherry-pick which it produces (paragraphs 5 to 7). Third-party licences are classed as highly confidential information, accessible to representatives, three external economic experts and three employees kept out of negotiations for two years. The extension sought by Dolby was cut to one week, since the information had already been shared within a confidentiality club (paragraphs 9 and 10).

Key points for practice

• A defendant may obtain production of a pool’s comparable licences even if the patentee has given no FRAND undertaking (paragraphs 5 to 7).
• The confidentiality regime may confine third-party licences to a small circle, including employees on condition that they stay out of negotiations.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 47

Rules of Procedure

Rules 103(c), 190, 262.2, 262A, 305.1(a), 313, 314, 315.4, 331, 332 and 334

Other provisions

CJEU, 16 July 2015, Huawei v ZTE, C-170/13

Case law cited

EOFlow v Insulet, Court of Appeal, 18 March 2026

Related decisions

• Dolby International v CPYou, 8 July 2026, panel order dismissing the review and granting leave to appeal.

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.