Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v HMD Global (CFI, 21 August 2025)
| Date | 21 August 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_34702/2025 · ORD_34789/2025 |
| Parties | HMD Global Oy |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
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
By an order of 21 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_494/2025, ORD_34789/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Hamburg Local Division (Judge Schilling) rejected HMD Global’s application for a one-month extension of the time limit for its statement of defence in Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft’s infringement action concerning EP 2 380 167. A FRAND defence, the technical nature of a standard or summer holidays will not secure extra time where the defendant has known of the licensing dispute for years.
Question
Do the technical nature of a standard, a FRAND defence involving a pool and summer absences justify extending the time limit for the statement of defence (Rule 9.3(a))?
Decision
No. The three-month period under Rule 23, the longest in the written procedure, allows time to establish the facts and to coordinate internally, including during holidays. How the technology is implemented is something the defendant, as manufacturer, knows or can readily establish. Coordination with suppliers and staff absences do not justify an extension. A FRAND defence may in principle justify one, but the involvement of a pool does not make this case more complex, and HMD had been in contact with the Via pool or the claimant for some eight years (a licence offer in 2017, a counter-offer in 2018). By way of observation, the judge invited the parties to agree that their confidentiality agreement covers the statement of defence, so that a request under Rule 262.2 would suffice instead of one under Rule 262A.
Key points for practice
- A defendant sued on a patent said to be standard essential must prepare its FRAND defence within the Rule 23 period, long-running negotiations weigh against an extension.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 9.3(a), 23, 262.2, 262A, 331.1 and 334(a)
- Case law cited
- Avago v Tesla, Hamburg Local Division, 22 August 2023 (order 560542, ACT_463258/2023)
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.
Going further
Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).
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.
Proceedings
Parties
- claimantHMD Global Oy15 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Generic application
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La demande de prorogation du délai du mémoire en défense est rejetée, ni la défense FRAND, ni la technicité de la norme, ni les absences estivales ne la justifiant au regard de huit ans de discussions de licence.
- 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 patent
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, 19 December 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.