Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_494/2025, 1 June 2026)
| Date | 1 June 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Infringement Action |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_494/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC_CFI_494/2025 |
| Parties | Fraunhofer-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
- 19 December 2025 : Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, 19 December 2025) UPC_CFI_494/2025 · UPC_CFI_495/2025
- 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.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
In a document of 1 June 2026 combining the summary of the interim conference with a procedural order, issued in the joined proceedings UPC_CFI_494/2025 and UPC_CFI_495/2025 (with counterclaims for revocation), the judge-rapporteur of the Hamburg Local Division prepares the oral hearing of 2 and 3 June 2026 in Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global Oy (EP 2 380 167 and EP 2 609 590, audio coding). The value of each action and each counterclaim is set at EUR 1.5 million, late submissions by the defendant are disregarded and the order of the final FRAND submissions is settled.
Question
Which late submissions on exhaustion and the FRAND defence may still be admitted on the eve of the hearing, and may the defendant reply to the proprietor’s last FRAND submission?
Decision
In case 495/2025, the defendant’s submissions on the FDK codec implementation (exhibit HL 6) are disregarded, auxiliary request III is admitted and the defendant may comment on infringement within two weeks. The proprietor’s FRAND submission permitted under Rule 36 RoP is admitted, as proportionality and fairness require it in the face of a FRAND defence (paragraph 10). The challenge to the Via pool royalty rates, first raised in the rejoinder, stays in the file since it introduces no new facts, but the defendant may not reply: the defendant to the counterclaim must have the last word (paragraphs 11 and 12). The written procedure closes once the time limits granted expire.
Key points for practice
- Practical point: a challenge to a patent pool’s royalty rates must be raised in the statement of defence, raised in the rejoinder, it gives no right to a further reply.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 9, 36, 105.5 and 263
- Case law cited
- Dolby v Beko, Düsseldorf Local Division, 14 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_135/2024), Orange v HMD Global, Paris Local Division, 10 April 2026
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.
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
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.
Parties
- defendantHMD Global Oy15 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantFraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
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_494/2025
- 19 December 2025 Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, 19 December 2025) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_494/2025
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.
- 1 June 2026 Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_494/2025, 1 June 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_494/2025
- 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)
- 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.
- 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 167mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patentEP 2 609 590mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_494/2025, 24 August 2026) cited in this record
- Orange v HMD Global (CFI, 10 April 2026) cited in this record
- Frauenhofer-Gesellschaft zur F v HMD Global (CFI, 19 December 2025) cited in this record
- Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, 19 December 2025) cited in this record
- Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_495/2025, 1 June 2026) cites this decision
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, 19 December 2025) · 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, 19 December 2025) · Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, 8 September 2025) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
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.