Case Law post CJEU ruling Huawei v ZTE
Use the menu above to find cases by national court, or filter cases by the following keywords:
Abuse of market power Anti-anti-suit injunction Anti-suit injunction Antitrust Claim charts Claim preclusion Comparable agreements Confidentiality Country by country licensing Cross-licensing Damages Essentiality ETSI declaration Exhaustion FRAND declaration FRAND range Fulfilment of Huawei obligations in pending proceedings Hold-out Hold-up Huawei framework Implementer’s counter-offer Implementer’s reaction to offer Injunction Non-disclosure agreement Non-discrimination Non-transitional and transitional cases Notification of infringement Obligations of SEP holder and alleged infringer (Huawei Obligations) Patent pools Patent validity Portfolio licensing Preliminary injunction Proportionality Provision of security Recall of products Recognised commercial practice Relevant market Rendering of accounts Royalty stacking SEP owner’s offer SSPPU Technical and FRAND-related trials Transfer of SEP True FRAND rate Validity Willingness Worldwide (portfolio) licenses

Subscribe to be kept updated

 Keep updated

Subscribe to be kept updated

* indicates required

Cases not referenced here? Let us know...

Preliminary remarks

The following summaries relate to court decisions rendered after the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or ECJ) handed down its ruling in case C170/13 Huawei v ZTE on 16 July 2015.

The summaries focus on the core issue raised by the Huawei decision, namely the conditions under which a standard essential patent holder may seek injunctive relief for infringement of his patents or where a standard implementer can raise a competition law-based defense to an action brought by a SEP holder. Occasionally, related and additional aspects of a decision are included into the summary because of their importance for understanding the context of FRAND licensing. In general, though, non-Huawei-related issues are omitted, such as, for instance, general procedural or patent law aspects (venue, patent description, validity, infringement, etc.).

However, it is likely that some pre-Huawei decisions will continue to be of relevance, inter alia where national courts deem the Huawei-rules inapplicable. [1]

With regard to the jurisdictions covered, the primary goal is to map the German situation but, depending on their accessibility, some decisions from other EU Member States are included, too.

Should you want to have access to all the summaries on one page follow this link.

  • [1] Possible examples are the decisions LG Düsseldorf, judgment of 22 January 2014 - Case No. 4a O 127/14; LG Mannheim, judgment of 10 March 2015 - Case No. 2 O 103/14; LG Düsseldorf, judgment of 26 March 2015 - Case No. 4b O 140/13; OLG Karlsruhe, judgment of 23 April 2015 - Case No. 6 U 44/15; LG Düsseldorf, judgment of 11 June 2015 - Case No. 4a O 44/14; LG Düsseldorf, judgment of 11 June 2015 - Case No. 4a O 45/14.

Table of Cases