- Federal Court of Justice - BGH –
- OLG Düsseldorf –
- OLG Düsseldorf – I-2 U 23/17
- Sisvel v Haier – I-15 U 66/15
- Sisvel v Haier 2 – 15 U 65/15
- Canon v Carsten Weser – I-15 U 49/15
- Sisvel v Haier 3 – I-15 U 66/15
- Canon v Sieg/Kmp Printtechnik/Part Depot – I-15 U 47/15
- Saint Lawrence v Vodafone – I-15 U 36/16
- Saint Lawrence v Vodafone 2 – I-15 U 35/16
- OLG Düsseldorf 2 – I-2 U 31/16
- OLG Düsseldorf 3 – I-2 W 8/18
- Unwired Planet v Huawei – I-2 U 31/16
- Philips v TCT – 2 U 13/21
- OLG Karlsruhe –
- LG Düsseldorf –
- Sisvel v Haier – 4a O 93/14
- Sisvel v Haier 2 – 4a O 144/14
- Saint Lawrence v Vodafone – 4a O 73/14
- Unwired Planet v Samsung – 4b O 120/14
- Saint Lawrence v Vodafone 2 – 4a O 126/14
- France Brevets v HTC – 4b O 140/13
- District Court, LG Düsseldorf – 4c O 81/17
- Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft (MPEG-LA) v ZTE – 4a O 15/17
- Tagivan (MPEG-LA) v Huawei – 4a O 17/17
- HEVC (Dolby) v MAS Elektronik – 4c O 44/18
- Conversant 対 Huawei – 事件番号: 4b O 30/18
- LG Mannheim –
- LG Munich –
- OLG Munich –
- Archos v. Philips, Rechtbank Den Haag – C/09/505587 / HA ZA 16-206 (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:1025)
- Koninklijke Philips N.V.対Asustek Computers INC.、ハーグ控訴裁判所 – 200.221.250/01
- Philips v Wiko, Court of Appeal of The Hague – C/09/511922/HA ZA 16-623
- Sisvel v Xiaomi, Court of The Hague – C/09/573969/ KG ZA 19-462
- Sisvel v Sun Cupid, District Court of The Hague – C/09/582418 HA ZA 19-1123
- Sisvel v Xiaomi, Court of Appeal of The Hague – C/09/573969/ KG ZA 19-462
- TQ Delta LLC v Zyxel Communications and Ors., EWHC – HP-2017-000045,  EWHC 1515 (Ch)
- Apple v Qualcomm,  EWHC 1188 (Pat) – HP-2017-000015
- TQ Delta LLC v Zyxel Communications,  EWHC 3305 (Pat) – HP-2017-000045
- Unwired Planet v Huawei,  EWHC 711 (Pat) – HP-2014-000005
- Unwired Planet v Huawei,  EWHC 1304 (Pat) – HP-2014-000005
- Unwired Planet v Huawei, EWHC – HP-2014-000005
- VRINGO Infrastructure v ZTE,  EWHC 214 (Pat) – HC 2012 000076, HC 2012 000022
- Unwired Planet対Huawei、 EWHC 711 (Pat) – HP-2014-000005
- Conversant v Huawei and ZTE,  EWHC 808 (Pat) – HP-2017-000048
- Unwired Planet v Huawei, UK Court of Appeal – A3/2017/1784,  EWCA Civ 2344
- TQ Delta LLC v Zyxel Communications UK Ltd. and Ors., UK High Court of Justice – HP-2017-000045,  EWHC 2577 (Pat)
- TQ Delta対Zyxel Communications、英国 高等法院 – HP-2017-000045 -  EWHC 745 (Pat)
- Unwired Planet対Huawei Conversant対Huawei 及び ZTE、英国最高裁判所 –  UKSC 37
Pioneer v Acer
2016年01月8日 - 事件番号: 7 O 96/14
Claimant owns the patent EP 1 267348, allegedly essential to the DVD standard and administered with regard to its licensing by the patent pool “A”. Early in 2013 “A” and the Defendant’s group parent were in contact regarding “A” ’s DVD licensing activity, but no concrete notice of infringement was made and no licensing negotiations ensued. After having been sued for patent infringement Defendant submitted, on 6 October 2014, an offer to license the patent-in-suit for Germany at FRAND conditions, with the exact royalty rate to be determined by Claimant pursuant to § 315 German Civil Code. Furthermore, Defendant declared to be willing to negotiate a portfolio license for all German patents of Claimant and, in case the negotiations were to fail, to have the licensing conditions determined by a state court or arbitration tribunal. In order to indicate what Defendant considered to be a FRAND royalty rate Defendant submitted an expert opinion. As of 28 November 2014, Claimant proposed to modify the conditions to the effect that Defendant’s group parent was supposed to take a worldwide portfolio license comprising all Claimant’s portfolio patents administered by “A”. Claimant made a (perhaps: additional) FRAND declaration with regard to the patent and informed Defendant thereof in December 2014. After Defendant had rejected this offer, Claimant offered, on 13 March and 13 April 2015, a worldwide portfolio license to Defendant’s group parent company. To the offer were added claim charts for two pool patents, as well as information on how Claimant deduced the royalty from the overall royalty rates of the “A”-patent pool. On 5 May 2015, Defendant’s group parent requested claim charts regarding all patents to be licensed as well as further information on royalty calculation. Claimant sent, on 7 August 2015, claim charts for five additional patents declaring its willingness to provide further information as soon as constructive technical discussions would be taken up. In a filing to the court as of 20 November 2015, Claimant explained its royalty calculation in greater detail and submitted an expert opinion on the issue.
- Court’s reasoning
- General meaning of the Huawei framework and applicability to transitory cases
As to the court’s general take on the Huawei rules cf. LG Mannheim, 29 January 2016 - 7 O 66/15 (above). Where an action for prohibitory injunction and recall of products has been brought before the ECJ handed down its ruling it has, in the opinion of the court, no negative effect on the action if Claimant fulfills its Huawei conduct obligations only after filing the lawsuit.  According to the extensive analysis undertaken by the court this is because, inter alia, the SEP proprietor could not be expected to comply with the – then future and unknown – conduct requirements established by Huawei but rather with the legal framework set by the German Federal Court (BGH) in Orange Book. Hence, a proprietor’s conduct that respected Orange Book but deviated from Huawei cannot be taken to signal inappropriate economic goals or lack of willingness to grant FRAND licenses. Furthermore, it seems more in line with the ECJ’s core intention of furthering successful licensing negotiations if the parties get the chance to perform their Huawei conduct obligations even though litigation is already underway.
Where, however, the action is brought after the Huawei ruling a violation of the conduct requirements established therein bars—as a matter of substantive law, not of procedural law—Claimant from enforcing its patent-based rights to prohibitory injunction or recall of products.  Although Claimant’s action will then be dismissed, Claimant is free to catch up on its Huawei obligations and re-file the action if the standard user fails to comply with Huawei.
- Market power and notice of infringement
Leaving open whether Claimant was market dominant, the court formulates general considerations identical to those in the decision LG Mannheim, 29 January 2016 - 7 O 66/15 (cf. above). The court doubts whether the initial contact between the patent pool “A” and Defendant’s group parent qualifies as an appropriate notice of infringement. In any case, such notice has been given by and after bringing the infringement lawsuit. Claimant’s statement of claims, in particular, contained all information necessary. Producing the original document in which Claimant made its FRAND declaration or proving that a FRAND declaration has been properly made during the standard-setting procedure is not required as long as the SEP proprietor considers itself bound by a FRAND licensing obligation. Not least because the lawsuit had been suspended for several months and some more months elapsed between the ECJ’s Huawei ruling and the oral hearings in the case at issue, there was ample time for the standard user to fulfill its Huawei duties and negotiate a license unburdened by the pressure created by an impending prohibitory injunction.  Even if it were justified to request—the court seems to doubt this—claim charts for a sample of patents where a worldwide portfolio license is offered, Claimant would have met this obligation, in particular because Defendant did not communicate that or why it considered the sample insufficient. It was not necessary for Claimant to impart to Defendant a documentation of the standard at issue. 
- The SEP proprietor’s licensing offer
The court’s general considerations are identical to those in the decision LG Mannheim, 29 January 2016 - 7 O 66/15 (cf. above): The court’s general understanding of the Huawei rules of conduct (cf. above) has a considerable impact on the way it intends to react to a SEP proprietor’s licensing offer:  The offer must specify the relevant conditions in a way that, in order to conclude a licensing agreement, the standard implementer has merely to state his acceptance of the offer. The calculation of the license fee, in particular, must be explained in a manner that enables the standard implementer to objectively assess its FRAND conformity. Even if the standard implementer disputes the FRAND character of the offer it is not the court’s business to determine whether the licensing conditions are actually FRAND. Neither is the SEP proprietor prohibited from offering conditions slightly above the FRAND threshold. A differing view of the parties on what constitutes FRAND is to be expected and provides no reason for cartel law-based intervention. An exploitative abuse of market power can, however, be present where the proprietor, after having made a FRAND declaration, offers conditions that are, under the circumstances of the case and without objective justification, manifestly less favorable (in an economic sense) than the conditions offered to other licensees. Correspondingly, the respective court is only required to determine, based on a summary assessment, whether the proprietor’s licensing offer evidently violates the FRAND concept.
In casu the court considered Claimant’s offer as sufficient,  in particular because a worldwide license, granted to the parent of a group, corresponded to recognized commercial practice in the field. It was no evident FRAND violation to calculate the royalties based on the licensing conditions of the patent pool “A” and Claimant’s share in the patents of this pool. It was further appropriate to demand a lump sum for past use of the patents to be licensed without specifying (in the licensing offer) the exact amount for lack of accessible information on the extent of the use. The information provided by Claimant on how the royalties were calculated was deemed sufficient. It was not necessary to impart to Defendant licensing contracts concluded with other market participants since “A” ’s model contracts were accessible on the Internet and no circumstances indicated unequal treatment of licensees absent objective justification such as differing turnovers.
- The standard implementer’s reaction
The court’s general considerations are identical to those in the decision LG Mannheim, 29 January 2016 - 7 O 66/15 (cf. above). In casu the court considered Defendant’s counter-offer to be evidently non-FRAND, mainly because the license would have—inappropriately, given the facts of the case and recognized commercial practice—been limited to Germany.  Furthermore, Defendant neither rendered account nor provided security for its use of the patent in the past. The fact that Defendant has—allegedly—terminated its use of the patent does not remove these obligations for past periods of use.  As the court explains in some detail,  an overall assessment of the conduct of the parties indicates that Defendant engaged in delaying tactics while Claimant was not trying to use the infringement action for extorting excessive royalties.
- General meaning of the Huawei framework and applicability to transitory cases
- Other important issues
The court underlines that a SEP proprietor has to respect the Huawei rules of conduct only with regard to an action for prohibitory injunction or the recall of products (cf. LG Mannheim, 29 January 2016 - 7 O 66/15, above). Regarding claims for rendering of accounts it mentions, but does not decide the question whether the existence of a FRAND declaration has an impact on the content of such claims. 
Even if the standard-setting at issue had—due to the lack of a timely FRAND commitment by Claimant—violated Art. 101 TFEU, this would not bar Claimant from enforcing its patents within the limits set by Art. 102 TFEU and the Huawei ruling. 
Neither competition law nor the general principle of good faith required Claimant to primarily address entities that produce standard-implementing components of Defendant’s products.  On the contrary, Claimant was free to immediately demand the taking of a license from Defendant, all the more so because Defendant was not only engaged in marketing and selling third-party devices but also devices produced by Defendant’s group of companies using the standard-implementing components.
-  Case No. 7 O 96/14, para. 84-107
-  Case No. 7 O 96/14, para. 81-83
-  Case No. 7 O 96/14, para. 109 et seq.
-  Case No. 7 O 96/14, para. 114-117
-  LG Mannheim, 29 January 2016 – Case No. 7 O 66/15, para. 58
-  Case No. 7 O 96/14, para. 118-129
-  Case No. 7 O 96/14, para. 131-133
-  Case No. 7 O 96/14, para. 134 et seq.
-  Case No. 7 O 96/14, para. 136-141
-  Case No. 7 O 96/14, para. 142
-  Case No. 7 O 96/14, para. 144 et seq.
-  Case No. 7 O 96/14, para. 146