Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, UPC_CFI_495/2025, 24 August 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 24 August 2026 (UPC_CFI_495/2025 and UPC_CFI_1131/2025), the Hamburg Local Division upheld Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft’s infringement action against HMD Global based on EP 2 609 590, which concerns the decoding of audio signals containing transients, maintained the patent as worded in Auxiliary Request I and rejected the exhaustion and competition law defences. It granted an injunction covering five States, recall, destruction, an interim award of EUR 219,000 and penalty payments. For FRAND practice, the proprietor need only point the implementer to one compliant licensing route, such as a pool, and an implementer insisting on a bilateral licence must give reasons for that choice and continue to show that it is a willing licensee.

Facts and procedure

Fraunhofer targeted HMD and Nokia smartphones and tablets running Android 9 or later, which implement the USAC audio standard (paragraphs 1 and 5). The patent is licensed through the AAC pool administered by Via, which made HMD an offer on 24 October 2017 (paragraph 249). HMD sought a bilateral licence, Fraunhofer made bilateral offers in 2017, 2019 and 2025, and HMD provided no security (paragraph 25). At the oral hearing on 2 and 3 July 2026, Fraunhofer limited its patent to Auxiliary Request I (paragraphs 26 and 106).

The applicable law

Exhaustion is governed by Art. 29 UPCA (paragraphs 207 to 209). The FRAND defence is assessed under Arts 101 and 102 TFEU and Huawei v ZTE (paragraphs 226 to 245). The remedies rest on Arts 25, 63, 64, 67, 68 and 82 UPCA, and limitation on Art. 72 UPCA read with German law (paragraphs 270 to 285).

Question

Is the limited patent valid and infringed by USAC-compliant devices, and can an implementer that declined the pool licence and insisted on a bilateral one rely on exhaustion or on competition law?

Decision

Claims 1 and 12 of Auxiliary Request I validly claim priority, so the draft USAC standard of April 2011 is not prior art (paragraphs 154 to 166), and the invention is not obvious (paragraphs 168 to 175). Devices running Android 9 make literal use of the claimed features (paragraphs 177 to 203). Neither Android nor the FDK codec is a licensed product under the Via licence granted to Google, and the bilateral agreement relied on does not cover patents (paragraphs 215 to 224). On FRAND, essentiality is assumed (paragraph 229). The pool offer, never challenged in substance during the negotiations, is treated as FRAND (paragraph 251). HMD gave no comprehensible reason for preferring the bilateral route, concluded bilateral licences with only a fraction of the pool members over almost nine years and provided no security: it is not a willing licensee, so Fraunhofer’s offers need not be examined (paragraphs 256 to 267). The panel nonetheless declined to treat security as an automatic condition, departing from the Munich Local Division and the German Federal Court of Justice (paragraph 264), and refused a reference to the CJEU (paragraphs 268 and 269). The injunction, recall, removal and destruction were ordered as from 6 August 2018, the release date of Android 9 (paragraphs 270 to 282). No claim is time-barred, since the negotiations suspended limitation under Section 203 of the German Civil Code (paragraphs 276 to 280). HMD was held liable in damages and publication was refused (paragraph 286). The interim award of EUR 219,000 under Rule 119 covers EUR 19,000 in court fees and EUR 200,000 in representation costs, on a value in dispute of EUR 1,500,000 (paragraph 288). Penalty payments run up to EUR 100,000 per day for the injunction, EUR 50,000 for recall and destruction and EUR 10,000 for information. The decision is enforceable. Should security be required, it is set at EUR 1,000,000, EUR 350,000 and EUR 150,000 (paragraphs 289 to 291). HMD bears the costs (paragraph 292).

Key points for practice

• The proprietor meets its obligations by pointing to a single compliant licensing route, subject to exceptions (multi-standard licences, cross-licensing, bilateral negotiations well advanced with many pool members) (paragraphs 241 and 242).
• Objections to the FRAND nature of the offer raised for the first time in court are disregarded (paragraph 252).
• A licence granted to the operating system supplier does not exhaust the patent as against a device maker outside its scope (paragraphs 215 to 223).
• Practical point: an implementer that turns down a pool in favour of bilateral licences must explain why, conclude within a reasonable time and consider providing security, the absence of which counts against it without being decisive on its own.

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, 30.1, 30.2, 118.8, 119, 263, 352.1 and 354

European Patent Convention

Arts 54, 69, 87 and 123(2)

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 3

Other provisions

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Arts 101, 102 and 267, CJEU, 16 July 2015, Huawei v ZTE, C-170/13, German Civil Code, Sections 195, 199 and 203

Case law cited

Huawei v Netgear, Munich Local Division, 18 December 2024, Panasonic v OPPO, Mannheim Local Division, 22 November 2024, InterDigital v The Walt Disney Company, Mannheim Local Division, 16 June 2026, Dolby v Beko, Düsseldorf Local Division, 18 March 2026, 10x Genomics v NanoString, Munich Local Division, 19 September 2023, Philips v Belkin, Munich Local Division, 11 February 2026, Fives ECL v REEL, Hamburg Local Division, 11 February 2026, Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, VusionGroup v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024, Fujifilm v Kodak, Court of Appeal, 2 June 2026, Amgen v Sanofi and Regeneron, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2025, Abbott Diabetes Care v Sinocare, Court of Appeal, 17 April 2026, Evac v Shanghai VacDrain, Düsseldorf Local Division, 22 June 2026, Brita v Aquashield, Munich Local Division, 22 August 2025, Hurom v NUC Electronics, Mannheim Local Division, 11 March 2025

Related decisions

• Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global, 1 June 2026, earlier order in the same proceedings.

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.