- Case law home
- CJEU decisions
- German court decisions
- 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 – 15 U 65/15
- Canon v Carsten Weser – I-15 U 49/15
- Sisvel v Haier – 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 – I-15 U 35/16
- OLG Düsseldorf – I-2 U 31/16
- OLG Düsseldorf – I-2 W 8/18
- Unwired Planet v Huawei – I-2 U 31/16
- OLG Karlsruhe –
- LG Düsseldorf –
- Sisvel v Haier – 4a O 93/14
- Sisvel v Haier – 4a O 144/14
- Saint Lawrence v Vodafone – 4a O 73/14
- Unwired Planet v Samsung – 4b O 120/14
- Saint Lawrence v Vodafone – 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
- LG Mannheim –
- LG Munich –
- OLG Munich –
- Dutch court decisions
- Archos v. Philips, Rechtbank Den Haag – C/09/505587 / HA ZA 16-206 (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:1025)
- Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Asustek Computers INC., Court of Appeal of The Hague – 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
- English court decisions
- 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 v 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 v Zyxel Communications, UK High Court of Justice – HP-2017-000045 -  EWHC 745 (Pat)
- Unwired Planet v Huawei & Conversant v Huawei and ZTE, UK Supreme Court
–  UKSC 37
- French court decisions
- Irish court decisions
- Italian court decisions
- Romanian court decisions
- National Courts Guidance
- Authors & contributors
Case law search
Updated 3 February 2020
30 October 2019 - Case No. 6 U 183/16
The Claimant, Philips, holds patents declared as (potentially) essential to the practice of wireless telecommunications standards (Standard Essential Patents or SEPs) developed by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), including SEPs reading on the UMTS and LTE standards. Philips committed towards ETSI to make its SEPs accessible to standard users on Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms and conditions.
The Defendant is the German subsidiary of the Wiko group of companies, which has its headquarters in France (Wiko). Wiko sells mobile phones implementing the LTE standard in Germany.
In October 2014, Philips informed the parent company of the Wiko group about its SEP portfolio, but did not receive a response. In July 2015, Philips shared a draft licensing agreement for its SEP portfolio as well as claim charts referring to several of its SEPs with the parent company of the Wiko group, which again did not react at all. In September 2015, Philips shared further technical details regarding its SEPs.
On 19 October 2015, Philips brought an infringement action against Wiko before the District Court of Mannheim based on one of its SEPs, requesting for injunctive relief, information and rendering of accounts, destruction and recall of infringing products from the market as well as a declaratory judgment confirming Wiko’s liability for damages on the merits.
On the next day, 20 October 2015, Wiko sent a letter to Philips, in which it declared its willingness to enter into negotiations with the latter for a licence covering ‘valuable’ patents. In August 2016, during the course of the pending infringement proceedings, Wiko made a counteroffer to Philips. Philips did not accept this offer. Subsequently, Wiko provided security to Philips for the use of its patents, calculated on basis of its counteroffer.
By judgment dated 25 November 2016  , the District Court of Mannheim granted Philips’ claims almost to the full extent. Wiko appealed the District Court’s judgement. In addition, by way of a counterclaim, Wiko requested disclosure of existing licensing agreements signed by Philips with similarly situated licensees (comparable agreements).
With the present judgment  , the Higher District Court of Karlsruhe (Court) overturned the ruling of the District Court in part. In detail, the Court confirmed Philips’ claims for information and the rendering of accounts as well as Wiko’s liability for damages on the merits. The Court, however, rejected Philips’ claims for injunctive relief, destruction and recall of infringing products from the market.
Apart from that, the Court also rejected Wiko’s counterclaim regarding the production of comparable agreements in the proceedings.
B. Court’s reasoning
The Court confirmed that Wiko’s products infringe the patent in suit  .
Contrary to the view taken previously by the District Court, the Court found, however, that Article 102 of the Treaty for the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) prevents Philips from enforcing the claims for injunctive relief as well as the recall and destruction of infringing products asserted in the infringement proceedings for the time being  . In the Court’s eyes, Philips had failed to meet the conduct obligations established by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in the matter Huawei v ZTE  (Huawei framework or obligations)  .
The Court explained that SEP holder’s failure to meet its Huawei obligations will – as a rule – render an infringement action resulting in an exclusion of the implementer from a downstream market (action for injunctive relief and/or recall and destruction of products) abusive in terms of Article 102 TFEU  . This will, however, not be the case, when the implementer himself fails to fulfil its duties under the Huawei framework; if the implementer acts in bad faith as an ‘unwilling’ licensee, then SEP holder’s Huawei obligations are ‘suspended’  . As a result, asserting the rights to injunctive relief and/or the destruction and recall of infringing products in court could then be considered as a justified reaction of the SEP holder to the implementer’s unwillingness to enter into a FRAND licence  .
Having said that, the Court expressed the view that the parties can remedy potential flaws in their conduct under the Huawei judgment and/or even fulfil their Huawei obligations for the first time during the course of pending infringement proceedings  . The Court noted that in Huawei v ZTE, the CJEU did not require that the parties fulfil all conduct obligations established prior to the initiation of court proceedings  . In the Court’s eyes, denying the parties such possibility is not compatible either with the general principle of proportionality known to European law, nor with the German civil procedural law, according to which courts need to consider all facts relevant for their decision-making raised in the proceedings until the end of the oral arguments  .
Accordingly, an infringement action that did not give rise to any antitrust concerns at the time it was filed, can be considered as abusive at a later point in time, if the situation significantly changed, e.g. the implementer fulfilled its Huawei obligations in the meantime  . Vice versa, an action of an abusive nature can later on be ‘corrected’, if the patent holder performs its duties under the Huawei framework during the course of the pending proceedings  .
In the Court’s view, a SEP holder seeking to remedy (or fulfil for the first time) obligations under the Huawei framework after the initiation of infringement proceedings must make sure that pressure-free licensing negotiations between the parties are enabled, as required by the CJEU in Huawei v ZTE  . For this, the patent holder must use procedural tools available under German law, particularly a motion for suspension of the trial  . The SEP holder can also propose a consensual stay of the proceedings, especially when a parallel nullity action against the patent in suit is pending before the Federal Patent Court  . In case such a motion is filed, the Court expects that a ‘willing’ implementer will consent to a suspension of the proceedings  .
On the other hand, the Court pointed out that fulfilment of Huawei obligations by the implementer after the beginning of infringement proceedings does not necessarily lead to a dismissal of the claims asserted by the SEP holder  . Indeed, if the implementer meets its Huawei duties at a very late point in time in the proceedings (e.g. shortly before the closing of the oral arguments), the Court could eventually neglect this fact in its decision  . This way, delays can be avoided. In this context, the Court also made clear that the implementer is not in a position to cause a unilateral suspension of the proceedings; in contrast to the opposite case (that is cases, in which a stay of the proceedings is suggested by the claimant), the SEP holder will usually not be required to agree to a suspension of the proceedings proposed by the implementer, in order to allow pressure-free negotiations to take place  . Insofar, the implementer bears the risk that the fulfilment of its obligations under the Huawei framework in the course of a pending infringement trial will have no impact  .
Notification of infringement
Looking at the specific conduct of the parties in the present case, the Court found that Philips had fulfilled its obligation to notify Wiko about the infringement of the SEP in suit prior to the commencement of the infringement proceedings.
The Court confirmed that a notification addressed to the parent company within a group of companies will usually be sufficient under the Huawei framework  . In terms of content, the Court was satisfied by the fact that Philips’ letter from July 2015 named the patent in suit as well as the relevant part of standard document implementing the technical teachings of this patent  . The Court explained that the notification does not have to contain (further) information required for a final assessment of the validity and essentiality of the patent in suit  . Accordingly, the SEP holder is not obliged to share claims charts customarily used in SEP licensing negotiations with the implementer along with the notification of infringement  .
Willingness to enter into a licence
The Court further found that Wiko had sufficiently met its obligation to express its willingness to negotiate a licence with Philips  .
The Court agreed with the assessment of the District Court that Wiko’s initial reaction to Philips’ notification in July 2015 by letter dated 20 October 2015 was belated. According to the Court, the time available to the implementer for expressing its willingness to enter into negotiations for a licence will – as a rule – not exceed two months  . This period of time will usually be sufficient: since by declaring its willingness to enter into negotiations the implementer does not waive any rights (especially the right to contest the validity and/or infringement of the patents in question), it shall not be given more time than the time needed for an ‘initial overview’ of the SEP holder’s claims  . Delaying tactics potentially applied by the implementer must be prevented  . Against this background, Wiko’s letter dated 20 October 2015 was sent to Philips too late.
Nevertheless, the Court found that Wiko had remedied the belated response after the beginning of the infringement proceedings. On the one hand, Wiko’s letter dated 20 October 2015 had reached Philips at a very early stage of the proceedings, namely just some days after the action was filed  . In addition, Wiko had confirmed its willingness to enter into negotiations with Philips expressed in said letter during the course of the proceedings, by making a counteroffer, rendering accounts and providing security to Philips  .
SEP holder’s offer
On the other hand, the Court held that Philips had failed to comply with its obligation to make a FRAND licensing offer to Wiko. In particular, the Court took the view that Philips did not provide sufficient information to Wiko with respect to its licensing offer dated July 2015  .
The Court argued that the ‘fairness’ element of the FRAND commitment establishes an ‘information duty’ (‘Informationspflicht’) of the SEP holder with respect to the content of its licensing offer to the implementer  . This duty exists besides the patent holder’s duty to make a FRAND licensing offer to the implementer  .
In terms of scope, the Court found that the information duty is, basically, not limited to the calculation of the offered royalty but also covers (objective) facts showing that the ‘contractual compensation factors’ (‘vertragliche Vergütungsfaktoren’) are not discriminatory  . The extent of the information to be shared depends on the circumstances of the specific ‘licensing situation’  .
In case that the patent holder has already granted licences to third parties, the information duty will extend also towards its ‘licensing practice’, including comparable agreements  .
If the SEP holder uses exclusively a standard licensing programme, then it will be sufficient to show that said programme has been accepted in the market and that the offer made to the implementer corresponds with the standard licensing agreement used  .
On the other hand, if the SEP holder has concluded individual licensing agreements with third licensees, then it would be obliged to disclose – at least – the content of the key contractual terms in a way that would allow the implementer to identify whether (respectively why) the offer it received is subject to dissimilar conditions  . The Court made, however, clear that – contrary to the approach adopted by the Duesseldorf courts – the SEP holder is not obliged in any case to disclose the full content of all existing comparable agreements  . In the eyes of the Court, the information duty serves only the purpose of facilitating good will licensing negotiations. A full disclosure of comparable agreement is, however, uncommon in practice  .
In this context, the Court pointed out that the patent holder will have to adequately substantiate the content of ‘justified confidentiality interests’ that might hinder the disclosure of comparable agreements  . Furthermore, the SEP holder would need to facilitate the conclusion of a Non-Disclosure Agreement which would allow sharing further information with the implementer  .
Based on the above considerations, the Court found that Philips had not fulfilled its information duty at any time  . In particular, the Court criticized that Philips did not adequately explain the reasons for choosing to agree on a lump sum payment (instead of a running royalty) in an existing agreement with a third licensee  . The fact that companies of different size were affected did not relieve Philips from its information duty; according to the Court, the mere fact that two competitors in a downstream market are of different size does not per se offer sufficient ground for different treatment  .
Since the Court assumed that Philips had failed to meet its information duties, it did not examine whether Philips’ licensing offer to Wiko was FRAND in terms of content  . In this respect, the Court seemed to agree, however, with the notion that FRAND is a range providing parties with a degree of flexibility  .
Implementer’s claim for disclosure of comparable agreements
Referring to the counterclaim for full disclosure of Philips’ comparable agreements raised by Wiko in the appeal proceedings, the Court clarified that a respective right of Wiko does not exist  .
Such a right does not arise either from German civil law (Articles 809 and 810 German Civil Code)  or Article 102 TFEU  . Furthermore, a right for disclosure of comparable agreement can neither be extracted by the SEP holder’s FRAND commitment to ETSI  . The Court saw no indication that French law (which is applicable to the ETSI FRAND undertaking) establishes such a right in favour of standards implementers  .
C. Other important issues
The Court pointed out that the claims for damages as well as information and rendering of accounts also asserted by Philips in the present proceedings are not subject to the Huawei framework  . Moreover, the Court explained that the non-fulfilment of the Huawei obligations by the patent holder poses no limitations on these rights in terms of content  . This is particularly true with respect to SEP holder’s claim to request information about expenses and profits from the implementer5  .
-  Philips v Wiko, District Court (Landgericht) of Mannheim, judgment dated 25 November 2016, Case No. 7 O 44/16.
-  Philips v Wiko, Higher District Court of Mannheim, judgment dated 25 November 2016, Case No. 7 O 44/16, cited by http://lrbw.juris.de.
-  Ibid, paras. 37-87.
-  Ibid, para. 88.
-  Huawei v ZTE, Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment dated 16 July 2015, Case No. C 170/13.
-  Philips v Wiko, Higher District Court of Mannheim, judgment dated 25 November 2016, para. 108.
-  Ibid, para. 107.
-  Ibid, paras. 117 et seqq.
-  Ibid, para. 119.
-  Ibid, paras. 120 et seq.
-  Ibid, para. 120.
-  Ibid, para. 125.
-  Ibid, para. 126.
-  Ibid, para. 127.
-  Ibid, para. 111.
-  Ibid, para. 112.
-  Ibid, paras. 115 and 117.
-  Ibid, para. 115.
-  Ibid, para. 129.
-  Ibid, paras. 131 et seqq.
-  Ibid, paras. 132 et seq.
-  Ibid, para. 135.
-  Ibid, para. 133.
-  Ibid, para. 134.
-  Ibid, paras. 136 et seqq.
-  Ibid, para. 136.
-  Ibid, para. 138.
-  Ibid, para. 131.
-  Ibid, para. 106.
-  Ibid, paras. 157 et seqq.
-  Ibid, paras. 162 et seqq.
-  Ibid, paras. 160 et seq.
-  Ibid, para. 161.
-  Ibid, para. 143.
-  Ibid, para. 144.
-  Ibid, paras. 145 et seqq.