Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v Verifone (CFI, UPC_CFI_661/2026, 14 September 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 14 September 2026, the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division permitted Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson to withdraw its action for infringement of EP 4 277 422 against the Verifone companies and Adyen (UPC_CFI_661/2026) following a settlement. The point of interest is the valuation of the FRAND-specific claims: contrary to the claimant’s position, they increase the value in dispute. The court fee refund was reduced to 40%, and the claimant must pay a further amount of fees, which is redacted.

Question

Does a claim for a declaration that a licence offer is FRAND-compliant add value of its own to the action, and how should it be quantified?

Decision

The withdrawal was permitted without a costs decision (paragraph 1), and the refund rate was cut from 50% to 40% on account of exceptional circumstances (Rule 370.9(e), paragraph 2). The FRAND claims add significant value, because the claimant sought a declaratory judgment binding on the parties. Its value follows the economic value of the subject matter, less a discount for its declaratory nature. For a claim for specific performance, it reflects the gap between offer and counteroffer when the action was filed (Rule 370.6). Making the injunction subject to the FRAND condition does not lower its value (paragraph 3(c)). A further discount was applied because the quick settlement suggested less entrenched differences, and the allocation of that value across the series was left open (paragraph 3(d)).

Key points for practice

• A SEP holder seeking a declaration that its offer is FRAND should expect a higher value, and therefore higher fees, and should substantiate its own estimate (paragraph 3).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 150, 265, 370.6, 370.9 and 370.11

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 28 May 2025, UPC_CoA_808/2024, Panasonic v OPPO, Mannheim Local Division, 22 November 2024, ZTE v Samsung, 29 April 2026, The Hague Local Division, order of 12 May 2026 (UPC_CFI_662/2026 and UPC_CFI_1184/2026)

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.