Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_494/2025, 24 August 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision on the merits of 24 August 2026 (UPC_CFI_494/2025 and UPC_CFI_1128/2025), the Hamburg Local Division held well-founded Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft’s infringement action against HMD Global on EP 2 380 167 (upmixing a downmix audio signal) and dismissed the counterclaim for revocation (paragraph 103): smartphones and tablets running Android 9 or later, which implement the USAC standard, literally use claims 1 and 14. The headnotes deal with the FRAND defence: the patent holder need only indicate one compliant licensing route, the implementer may in some situations demand a bilateral licence instead of the pool licence, but that choice does not lighten its duty to show willingness to take a licence. The Division granted an injunction for Germany, France, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands, recall, definitive removal and destruction of products placed on the market since 6 August 2018, information, an interim award of EUR 219,000 and liability for damages, but made enforcement conditional on security to be provided by Fraunhofer (EUR 1,000,000 for the injunction). It declined to treat security from the implementer as an automatic condition of the FRAND defence (paragraph 262).

Facts and procedure

The AAC pool administrator, Via, offered HMD a licence from 2017, HMD insisted on a bilateral licence from Fraunhofer, which made three offers between December 2017 and April 2025, while HMD made counteroffers and raised exhaustion. HMD provided no security (paragraphs 10 to 25). Fraunhofer sought, among other things, an injunction for Germany, France, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands, a recall, information, an interim award of damages of EUR 219,000 and penalty payments (paragraph 27). The related decision of the same day on EP 2 609 590 (UPC_CFI_495/2025) is a separate act.

The applicable law

Standing and jurisdiction were not disputed (Rule 19.7 RoP) (paragraphs 104 and 105). Claims are construed under Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol (paragraph 119). Art. 29 UPCA excludes rights in products placed on the EU market with the proprietor’s consent. For a method claim, exhaustion requires consent to the use (paragraphs 205 to 207). The FRAND defence is examined under Art. 102 TFEU, dominance being assumed for a standard essential patent (paragraphs 223 and 224).

Question

Do HMD’s Android devices infringe a valid patent, are the rights exhausted by existing licences, and can an implementer that demands a bilateral licence after a pool offer rely on the FRAND defence?

Decision

Claim 1 is novel and inventive over HLCC 7, HLCC 8 combined with HLCC 9 or 10, and HLCC 11, none of which teaches separate interpolation of the magnitude and phase of upmix parameters (paragraphs 145 to 183), the auxiliary requests were not examined (paragraph 186). Real-valued magnitude and phase information can describe a complex-valued parameter, and a negative value always comprises a magnitude (paragraphs 127 to 139), the devices infringe claims 1 and 14 (paragraphs 187 to 202). Exhaustion fails: the Via licence does not benefit HMD and the FDK software library is not an end-user product (paragraphs 208 to 222). On FRAND, HMD showed neither circumstances entitling it to demand a bilateral licence, nor continuous willingness to take one, nor any security (paragraph 223). The Division restated the Huawei/ZTE framework: reciprocal obligations, review of the patent holder’s latest offer, FRAND as a range (paragraphs 228 to 237). The holder may meet its obligations through a pool offer or a bilateral offer. The implementer may insist on the bilateral route for comprehensible reasons, but that choice does not lighten its duty to show willingness (paragraphs 238 to 243). Via’s offer, never specifically challenged during the negotiations, was treated as FRAND, and criticisms raised for the first time in the rejoinder were disregarded (paragraphs 249 to 253). HMD gave no comprehensible reasons, had concluded bilateral licences with only a fraction of the pool members in almost nine years and never provided security: its willingness was not established, so Fraunhofer’s offer did not need to be examined (paragraphs 254 to 265). A reference to the CJEU was unnecessary (paragraphs 266 and 267). The injunction was granted, proportionality having already been weighed in the FRAND analysis (paragraphs 268 to 270). The UPCA also governs the future effects of acts begun before 1 June 2023, the claims run from 6 August 2018, the release date of Android 9, and are not time-barred, the German limitation period having been suspended by the negotiations (Section 203 BGB) (paragraphs 271 to 277). Penalty payments may reach EUR 100,000 per day for the injunction, EUR 50,000 for recall, removal and destruction, and EUR 10,000 for information (paragraph 282). Publication was refused, the case already attracting sufficient publicity (paragraph 283). The interim award of EUR 219,000, based on a value of EUR 1,500,000 (EUR 19,000 in court fees and EUR 200,000 in representation costs), was granted under Rule 119 RoP (paragraphs 284 and 285). Enforcement is subject to security of EUR 1,000,000 (injunction), EUR 350,000 (recall and destruction), EUR 150,000 (information) and the amount enforced for the interim award, given the massive effect of the injunction (paragraphs 286 to 288). The counterclaim was rejected, the patent upheld as granted, and HMD bears the costs (paragraph 289).

Key points for practice

• The holder of a standard essential patent meets its obligations by indicating one FRAND licensing route, which may be the pool (headnote 1).
• A bilateral licence may be demanded, for instance where the implementer seeks a multi-standard licence or cross-licences, or has already advanced bilateral licences with many pool contributors (headnote 2).
• Insisting on bilateral licensing without comprehensible reasons, without concluding agreements with the other pool licensors within a reasonable time and without security may show unwillingness (headnote 3).
• Practical point: an implementer that turns down the pool offer must explain that choice during the negotiations and provide security, while not an automatic condition, the absence of security weighs heavily against an unchallenged pool offer.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 20, 21, 24, 25, 29, 63, 64, 67, 68, 72 and 82

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19.7, 30, 118.8, 119, 190, 263, 266.5, 352.1, 354.3 and 354.4

European Patent Convention

Art. 69 and Protocol on its interpretation, Art. 1

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 3

Other provisions

TFEU, Arts. 101, 102 and 267, German Civil Code (BGB), Sections 195, 199 and 203

Case law cited

Huawei v Netgear, Munich Local Division, 18 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_9/2023), VusionGroup v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024 (UPC_CoA_1/2024), 10x Genomics v NanoString, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_335/2023), Court of Appeal, 11 March 2024, Düsseldorf Local Division, 9 April 2024 (UPC_CFI_452/2023), Amgen v Sanofi and Regeneron, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024), Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_464/2024), Abbott Diabetes Care v Sinocare, Court of Appeal, 17 April 2026 (UPC_CoA_901/2025), Panasonic v OPPO, Mannheim Local Division, 22 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_210/2023), InterDigital v The Walt Disney Company, Mannheim Local Division, 16 June 2026 (UPC_CFI_86/2025), Dolby v Beko, Düsseldorf Local Division, 18 March 2026 (UPC_CFI_135/2024), Philips v Belkin, Munich Local Division, 11 February 2026 (UPC_CFI_171/2025), Fives ECL v REEL, Hamburg Local Division, 11 February 2026 (UPC_CFI_274/2023), Hurom v NUC Electronics, Mannheim Local Division, 11 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_162/2024)

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.