Opens in a new tab

Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_494/2025, 1 June 2026)

Date1 June 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionHamburg (DE) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_494/2025
Registry referenceUPC_CFI_494/2025
PartiesFraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v. HMD Global Oy

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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 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

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
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

Follow this case

Parties

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 19 December 2025 Frauenhofer-Gesellschaft zur F v HMD Global (CFI, 19 December 2025) Procedural Order · UPC_CFI_494/2025
  2. 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.

  3. 1 June 2026 Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_494/2025, 1 June 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_494/2025
  4. 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

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 2 380 167Mentioned 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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
EP 2 609 590Mentioned 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 recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.