Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, 19 December 2025)

Date	19 December 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Hamburg (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Infringement Action
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_494/2025;UPC_CFI_495/2025
Registry reference	UPC_CFI_494/2025 · UPC_CFI_495/2025
Parties	Frauenhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v. HMD Global Oy

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

19 December 2025 : Frauenhofer-Gesellschaft zur F v HMD Global (CFI, 19 December 2025) UPC_CFI_494/2025and · UPC_CFI_495/2025
1 June 2026 : Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_494/2025, 1 June 2026) UPC_CFI_494/2025
24 August 2026 : Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_494/2025, 24 August 2026) UPC_CFI_494/2025

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

In an order of 19 December 2025, made in the joined proceedings UPC_CFI_494/2025 and UPC_CFI_495/2025, the judge-rapporteur of the Hamburg Local Division ruled on HMD Global’s request for production of licences in support of its FRAND defence, in Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft’s actions based on EP 2 380 167 and EP 2 609 590 (MPEG-4/AAC standard). Only the AAC licence concluded with a third party, which Fraunhofer agreed to produce, was ordered, under confidentiality. The other requests were held premature.

Question

Must the holder of a standard essential patent, under Rule 190, produce the licences the defendant relies on for its FRAND defence?

Decision

The request was granted only in part (paragraph 14). The AAC licence was ordered, Fraunhofer having consented subject to a confidentiality order under Rule 262A (paragraph 15). The request for a licence with a third party, relied on for exhaustion, was not ripe: that argument is independent of the FRAND defence and HMD must first try to obtain the document itself (paragraphs 16 and 17). The five expired licences are not needed at this stage, since the injunction is assessed against the current licensing programme and pool (paragraphs 18 to 20), they may matter for damages, and Fraunhofer was invited to clarify how similar the pricing tables are (paragraph 21).

Key points for practice

Production of licences under Rule 190 may be staged: necessity and proportionality may be met only at a later stage (paragraphs 11 to 13).
Practical point: a defendant relying on exhaustion through a third-party licence should first try to obtain the document itself before seeking a production order.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 59 and Art. 73(2)(a)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 190, 220.1(c), 224.1(b) and 262A
Case law cited: Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecomm v Panasonic, Court of Appeal, 24 September 2024, Mannheim Local Division, 16 September 2025 (UPC_CFI_247/2025)

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.

Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Patent infringement action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).

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

UPC_CFI_494/2025 official number
UPC_CFI_495/2025 official number

Follow these proceedings

Parties

defendantHMD Global Oy15 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantFrauenhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V2 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

19 December 2025 Frauenhofer-Gesellschaft zur F v HMD Global (CFI, 19 December 2025) Procedural Order · UPC_CFI_495/2025, UPC_CFI_494/2025
19 December 2025 Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, 19 December 2025) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_495/2025, UPC_CFI_494/2025
1 June 2026 Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_494/2025, 1 June 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_494/2025
La valeur de chaque action et demande reconventionnelle est fixée à 1,5 million d’euros, des écritures tardives sont écartées et la défenderesse ne peut répliquer à la dernière écriture FRAND du titulaire.
1 June 2026 Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_495/2025, 1 June 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_495/2025
24 August 2026 Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_495/2025, 24 August 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_495/2025
La division locale de Hambourg retient la contrefaçon du brevet EP 2 609 590, maintenu sous la forme de la requête subsidiaire I, écarte l'épuisement et le moyen FRAND, et ordonne interdiction, rappel, destruction, provision de 219 000 euros et astreintes.
24 August 2026 Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_494/2025, 24 August 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_494/2025
La division locale de Hambourg juge l'action en contrefaçon de Fraunhofer fondée et rejette la demande reconventionnelle, écarte l'épuisement et la défense FRAND faute de volonté établie d'HMD, et prononce interdiction, rappel, retrait, destruction, informations et provision de 219 000 euros, l'exécution étant subordon…

What the record states

Nature of the act: Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Seule la licence AAC, dont le titulaire acceptait la production, est ordonnée sous confidentialité. Les demandes portant sur une licence de tiers et sur cinq licences expirées sont jugées prématurées.
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 2 380 167 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
EP 2 609 590 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_495/2025, 24 August 2026) cited in this record
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_494/2025, 24 August 2026) cited in this record
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_494/2025, 1 June 2026) cited in this record
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_495/2025, 1 June 2026) cited in this record
Frauenhofer-Gesellschaft zur F v HMD Global (CFI, 19 December 2025) cited in this record
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecomm v Panasonic (CoA, ORD_48652/2024, 24 September 2024) cited in this record

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 2 380 167`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_494/2025, 24 August · Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_494/2025, 1 June 20 · Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, 21 August 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
`EP 2 609 590`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_495/2025, 24 August · Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_494/2025, 24 August · Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_494/2025, 1 June 20 · Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, 8 September 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked 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.