Case Law post CJEU ruling Huawei v ZTE
gb jp cn

Back to main 4iP Council site

Case law search

Updated 6 June 2017

Archos v. Philips, Rechtbank Den Haag

Dutch court decisions
8 February 2017 - Case No. C/09/505587 / HA ZA 16-206 (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:1025)

  1. Facts
    Defendant (Koninklijke Philips N.V.) is the proprietor of a number of patents declared essential to ETSI’s UMTS (3G) and LTE (4G) standards. Defendant made FRAND commitments towards ETSI on 15 January 1998 and 26 November 2009. Claimant (Archos S.A.) markets mobile devices which are alleged to infringe upon Defendant’s patents.
    By letter of 5 June 2014, Defendant brought her UMTS and LTE patent portfolio and her licensing program to the attention of Claimant. In this letter, Defendant made clear that Claimant was infringing her patents by marketing products incorporating the UMTS and LTE standards and explained the possibility of obtaining a FRAND license. On 15 September 2014, a meeting took place to inform Claimant of Defendant’s patent portfolio and to discuss the licensing offer. In another meeting on 25 November 2014, Claimant suggested Defendant to grant her a royalty-free license to all of Defendant’s patents (i.e. not only to the UMTS/LTE patents but also to other patents related to so-called ‘Portable Features’) in exchange for the transfer of certain patents of Claimant to Defendant. Defendant informed Claimant by email of 23 December 2014 that it was not interested in Claimant’s patents because it considered them to represent ‘relatively low value’.
    By letter of 28 July 2015 Defendant sent Claimant an updated list of UMTS/LTE patents as well as a draft licensing agreement in which she confirmed her earlier licensing offer. The proposed royalty amounted to $ 0.75 per product containing UMTS and/or LTE functionality. For products already sold, a royalty of $ 1 would need to be paid. At a next meeting on 3 September 2015, it became clear that Claimant did not wish to obtain the license offered. On behalf of Claimant, it was made clear during the meeting that Defendant would have to take legal action if she wished to obtain a license fee. In October 2015, Defendant started proceedings before the Rechtbank Den Haag for infringement of her European Patents EP 1 440 525, EP 1 685 659 and EP 1 623 511.
    By letter of 12 January 2016, Claimant made a written counter offer of 0.071% of her net revenue from products incorporating the UMTS and/or LTE standards. For a net sale price per product of € 100, the offered royalty would amount to 7 eurocent per product.
  2. Court’s reasoning
    Claimant asked the court to declare that Defendant’s licensing offer of 28 July 2015 is not FRAND and to declare that a royalty fee of € 0.007 for every product sold by Claimant incorporating the UMTS standard and a royalty fee of € 0.020 for every product sold by Claimant incorporating the UMTS and LTE standards is FRAND. In addition, Claimant asked the court to rule that its own licensing offer of 12 January 2016 is higher than what a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory royalty fee would require.
    1. Market power and notice of infringement
      The court left open whether the SEPs conferred market power to Defendant since it did, in any case, find no abuse of such potential market power. The court argued that it is generally accepted and to be inferred from the system laid down in the Huawei/ZTE judgment that a FRAND license has a certain bandwidth. After all, the Huawei/ZTE judgment contemplates that the SEP holder makes a FRAND offer first and afterwards, if the SEP user does not agree with the offer, makes a counter offer which also has to be FRAND. During this negotiation process, the characteristics of the SEP user as well as its specific objections can be taken account in the license at the discretion of the parties. As such, the court noted that the fact that Defendant’s initial offer would turn out to be unreasonable for Claimant because she finds itself in the low budget segment of the market and her margins are small does not imply that the offer made by Defendant on 28 July 2015 is not FRAND.
      The court also made clear that until the Huawei/ZTE judgment the initiative to obtain a license was incumbent on the SEP user and not on the SEP holder in line with the common interpretation of the judgment of the Rechtbank Den Haag in Philips/SK Kassetten and the Orange Book ruling of the Bundesgerichtshof. In the view of the court the, on this crucial point, contrary Huawei/ZTE judgment that was delivered on 15 July 2015 constituted a new moment for negotiation between the parties. The court noted that, in line with the Huawei/ZTE judgment, Defendant took initiative with its licensing offer of 28 July 2015. Since Claimant made clear in the meeting on 3 September 2015 that Defendant would have to take legal action if she wished to obtain more than a few thousand euros in licensing fees, it seems unfitting that Archos reproaches Philips to have not been open to negotiation, or at least that position is insufficiently substantiated (par. 4.3).
    2. The SEP owner’s licensing offer
      Claimant put forward a number of arguments for its claim that Defendant’s offer of 28 July 2015 is not FRAND. All of these arguments were rejected by the court on the ground that Claimant had not sufficiently substantiated them. The main arguments raised are as follows.
      Claimant argued that Defendant’s rights regarding devices incorporating Qualcomm baseband chips had been exhausted due to the cross-license that Defendant had already concluded with Qualcomm for these chips. Since a number of Claimant’s products rely on Qualcomm baseband chips, the compensation that Defendant had already received from Qualcomm should, in the view of Claimant, at least have been taken into account in the license offer. The court noted that Claimant had not sufficiently contested that the Qualcomm license did not cover production and sales of mobile phones – as Defendant had made clear before the court – and that Claimant could have raised this point during the negotiations (par. 4.4).
      The court continued by stating that the fact that Defendant’s licensing offer covered both UMTS and LTE SEPS could not affect the FRAND-ness of the offer in the case at hand considering that Claimant’s products do not merely require a license under the LTE SEPs but also under the UMTS SEPs (par. 4.5).
      While the parties agreed that the Defendant’s share of the absolute number of SEPs in the UMTS-SEP portfolio is an important factor for assessing the FRAND-character of Defendant’s offer, they each reached different absolute numbers. The court concluded that the calculations in the consultancy reports on which Claimant relied do not lead to accurate results and are rather speculative in nature. As such, the Claimant downplayed the value of Defendant’s SEPs (par. 4.6-4.7).
      With regard to Claimant’s argument that Defendant’s proposed royalty rate would amount to impermissible royalty stacking, the court argued that this was insufficiently substantiated by Claimant (par. 4.8).
      Claimant also argued that the royalty rate should not be based on the total price of a phone but merely on the part in which the technology at issue is incorporated (the Smallest Saleable Patent-Practising Unit, SSPPU). In this context, the court noted that Defendant rightly pointed out that the requested royalty was set at a fixed amount as a result of which there is no relationship with the market value of the phone. Furthermore, since the SSPPU concept is at the very least subject to debate, the court noted that this issue could have been considered in the negotiations. That the royalty rate suggested by Defendant, which was not based on the SSPPU price, would not be FRAND for that mere reason could not be established by the court (par. 4.10).
      The court also dismissed Claimant’s reference to patent hold-up on the ground that a situation of hold-up can only occur in the case of a non-FRAND license which had not been established in the case at issue (par. 4.13).
      In the end, the court dismissed Claimant’s request to make a declaratory statement that Defendant’s offer of 28 July 2015 was not FRAND.
    3. The standard implementer’s reaction
      Considering that Claimant’s counter offer of 12 January 2016 is more than a factor 10 lower than the Defendant’s offer and is based on an inaccurate (at least insufficiently substantiated) share of Defendant’s SEPs in the relevant UMTS standard, the court refused to declare the counter offer to be FRAND, let alone to declare that this counter offer is higher than a FRAND royalty rate as requested by Claimant (par. 4.17-4.18).
  3. Other important issues
    AA defence that Defendant invoked was that Claimant had no interest (anymore) in the requested declaratory statements because its respective FRAND commitments were exhausted due to the unwilling attitude of Claimant. However, as Claimant’s requests for the declaratory statements were found not to be sufficiently substantiated, there was no need for the court to discuss this issue anymore (par. 4.18).

Updated 9 November 2020

Nokia v Daimler

LG Mannheim
18 August 2020 - Case No. 2 O 34/19

A. Facts

The claimant is part of the Nokia group with headquarters in Finland (Nokia). Nokia is a major provider of telecommunication services and holds a significant portfolio of patents declared as (potentially) essential to the practice of various wireless telecommunication standards (Standard Essential Patents, or SEPs) developed by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI).

The defendant, Daimler, is a German car manufacturer with a global presence. Daimler produces and sells cars in Germany with connectivity features which implement standards developed by ETSI.

Nokia declared the patent involved in the present case as essential for the 4G/LTE Standard towards ETSI. ETSI requires patent holders to commit to make patents that are or might become essential to the practice of a standard accessible to users on Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms and conditions.

On 21 June 2016, Nokia informed Daimler about its SEP portfolio by providing a list containing all patents and patent applications which Nokia declared as (potentially) essential towards ETSI. Daimler responded that a licence could be taken under the condition that its products actually infringe Nokia's patents.

On 9 November 2016, Nokia made a first licensing offer to Daimler. On 7 December 2016, Nokia shared further information regarding its patent portfolio with Daimler. On 14 December 2016, Daimler replied that it would be more efficient to license its suppliers manufacturing the so-called 'Telematics Control Units' (TCU), which are built into Daimler's cars. From January 2017 until February 2019, Daimler did not engage in further negotiations with Nokia and also refrained from participating in discussions which Nokia had with Daimler's suppliers.

On 27 February 2019, Nokia made a second licensing offer to Daimler to which further claim-charts mapping its patents to the relevant parts of the affected standards were attached. On 19 March 2019, Daimler rejected this offer as well, basically, by arguing that the royalties for Nokia's portfolio should be calculated on basis of the components provided to Daimler by its suppliers and not the cars produced by Daimler.

Subsequently, Nokia filed several infringement actions against Daimler before the District Courts of Munich, Duesseldorf and Mannheim in Germany.

On 9 May 2019, shortly after the infringement proceedings were initiated, Daimler made a counteroffer to Nokia. Basis for the calculation of the royalties for Nokia's portfolio was the average selling price for TCUs paid by Daimler to its suppliers. Nokia rejected this counteroffer.

On 10 June 2020, Daimler made a second counteroffer to Nokia. Nokia would be able to unilaterally determine the licensing fees (in accordance with Sec. 315 of the German Civil Code). Daimler would, however, have the right to contest the fee determined before court. The second counteroffer was also rejected.

On 18 June 2020, the German Federal Cartel Office (Cartel Office) intervened in the present proceedings before the District Court of Mannheim (Court) and recommended that the Court referred certain questions concerning the nature of the FRAND commitment to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). The Court did not follow the recommendation of the Cartel Office.

With the present judgment [1] (cited by, the Court granted an injunction against Daimler and also recognised Daimler's liability to pay damages on the merits. The Court further ordered Daimler to render accounts and provide information necessary for the calculation of damages to Nokia.

B. Court's reasoning

The Court found that Daimler infringed the patent-in-suit [2] . For this reason, Nokia was entitled -among other claims- to injunctive relief [3] .

Daimler and its suppliers that joined the proceedings asserted so-called 'FRAND-defences', arguing that by filing infringement actions, Nokia had abused its dominant market position in violation of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) and should, therefore, be denied an injunction. In particular, it was argued that Nokia had failed to comply with the conduct requirements established by the CJEU in the matter Huawei v ZTE [4] (Huawei decision, or framework).

The Court dismissed the FRAND-defences raised by Daimler and its suppliers as unfounded [5] .

Huawei framework

The Court made clear that SEP holders are not per se prevented from enforcing the exclusivity rights arising from their patents Ibid, para. 146. The fact that a patent is standard essential does not mean that the patent holder is obliged to tolerate the use of its technology, unless it has allowed such use or was under an obligation to allow such use, as a consequence of holding a dominant market position Ibid, para. 146.

An abuse of market dominance by the enforcement of patent rights does not occur, if the patent holder complies with its duties under the Huawei framework [7] . These duties presuppose, however, that the implementer, who already uses the protected technology without authorization by the right holder, is willing to take a licence on FRAND terms [8] . The Court explained that it cannot be requested by the patent holder to 'impose' a licence to any standards user, not least because it has no legal claim to request the signing of a licensing agreement [8] . Moreover, the 'particular responsibility' attached to its dominant position requires from the SEP holder to make 'sufficient efforts' to facilitate the signing of an agreement towards a licensee in principle willing to take a licence [9] .

Notification of infringement

According to the Court, these 'efforts' include a duty to notify the implementer about the infringement of the patent(s) involved as well as the possibility and need to take a licence prior to filing an infringement action Ibid, para. 152. Looking at the specific case, the Court found that Nokia met this obligation Ibid, paras. 151-156.

In terms of content, the notification of infringement must name the patent infringed and describe the specific infringing use and the attacked embodiments [10] . A detailed technical and legal analysis of the infringement is not required: the implementer should only be placed in a position to evaluate the infringement allegation, eventually by taking recourse to expert and/or legal advice [10] . As a rule, presenting claim charts will be sufficient (but not mandatory) [10] . The Court also pointed out that the patent holder is not required to address a separate notification of infringement to each supplier of an end-device manufactures infringing its patents [12] .

In the eyes of the Court, Nokia's e-mails dated 21 June 2016, 9 November 2016 and 7 December 2016 meet the above requirements [13] . The fact that -at least initially- Nokia did not indicate the concrete section of the standards documentation to which the patent-in-suit referred to was not considered harmful, since the notification of infringement is not required to facilitate a final assessment of infringement [14] .

Furthermore, the Court held that it was not necessary for Nokia to identify in the notification of infringement the specific components which generate connectivity according to the relevant standard, e.g. the TCUs built into Daimler's cars [15] . Since Daimler purchases and uses these components in its products, no information deficit could occur [15] .


Moreover, the Court found that Daimler did not adequately express its willingness to enter into a FRAND licence with Nokia and could, thus, not rely on a FRAND defence to avoid an injunction Ibid, paras. 157-231.

In the Court's eyes, the implementer has to 'clearly' and 'unambiguously' declare that it is willing to sign a licence with the SEP holder 'on whatever terms are in fact FRAND' and, subsequently, engage in licensing negotiations in a 'target-oriented' manner (citing Federal Court of Justice, judgment dated 5 May 2020 – Sisvel v Haier, Case No. KZR 36/17 and High Court of Justice of England and Wales, judgment dated 5 April 2017, Case No. [2017] EWHC 711(Pat) – Unwired Planet v Huawei) [17] . The 'target-oriented' engagement of the implementer in licensing negotiations is of decisive importance: since implementers, as a rule, already use the patented standardized technology prior to the initiation of licensing negotiations, they could have an interest to delay the signing of a licence until the expiration of the patent, which, however, conflicts with the spirit of the Huawei decision [18] . Accordingly, it is not sufficient, in response to a notification of infringement, to just demonstrate willingness to consider signing a licensing agreement or to enter into negotiations about whether and under which conditions taking a licence comes into question [17] .

The Court further pointed out that making the declaration of willingness subject to conditions was not acceptable [17] . What is more, refusing to discuss about any improvement of a counteroffer made to the patent holder could also be considered as an indication of unwillingness from the side of the implementer [17] .

Based on the above, the Court took the view that by initially making the signing of a licence subject to the condition that its products actually infringe Nokia's patents, Daimler did not adequately express willingness to sign a FRAND licence [19] . The Court added that Daimler's counteroffers could neither be considered as a sufficient sign of willingness: especially the second counteroffer, giving Daimler the right to contest the royalty rates that Nokia would unilaterally set, would just postpone the actual dispute between the parties about the determination of the licensing fees to later court proceedings [20] .

The Court also held that Daimler did not act as an 'willing' licensee, since it did not engage in negotiations with Nokia, but insisted that its suppliers take a direct licence from the latter, instead [21] . Furthermore, the missing willingness of Daimler was also confirmed by its insistence on applying the average selling price of TCUs purchased by Daimler by its suppliers as base for the calculation of the licensing fees for Nokia's SEP portfolio [22] .

Calculation of FRAND fees

The Court found that the use of TCUs as the 'reference value' for the calculation of the royalty fees for Nokia's SEP portfolio was not appropriate Ibid, para. 169.

In general, there is not only a single set of FRAND terms and conditions; usually, there is a range of licensing conditions and fees which are FRAND [24] . Moreover, what can be considered as FRAND may differ from industry sector to industry sector as well as in time [24] .

The Court pointed out, however, that the patent holder must, in principle, 'be given a share' in the 'economic benefits of the technology to the saleable end product at the final stage of the value chain' [25] . Reason for that is, that the use of the protected invention 'creates the chance' to gain an 'economic profit' with the end product, which is based on the invention [25] . The Court did not agree with the notion that by considering the value of the patented technology for the end product SEP holders benefit from innovation taking place at other stages of the value chain [26] . The Court noted that there are several instruments available to make sure that this will not occur [26] .

Accordingly, the Court rejected the notion of using the so-called 'Smallest Saleable Patent Practising Unit' (SSPPU), that is the smallest technical unit integrated in a product, as base for the calculation of FRAND royalty rates [26] . The effects of patent exhaustion would prevent the SEP holder from participating in the value created at the final stage of the value chain [26] . Apart from that, this option would make it more complex to identify and avoid 'double-dipping', meaning licensing the same patent at several stages of the value chain [26] .

Having said that, the Court clarified that the above principle does not necessarily mean that licensing agreements should be signed exclusively with end-device manufacturers [27] . The Court considered that there are various possibilities to factor the value of the patented technology for the saleable end product also at other stages of a supply chain [27] .

Against this background, the Court found that the selling price of TCUs did not sufficiently mirror the value of Nokia's SEPs for the cars produced by Daimler, which are the relevant end devices in the present case [28] . The selling price of TCUs corresponds only to Daimler's respective costs [29] . Connectivity, on the other hand, allows Daimler to generate income from additional services offered to its clients, save costs and optimise R&D expenses [30] . Connectivity secures the chance to create this value [31] . In addition, the Court noted that the acceptance of the licensing model of the Avanci platform (which grants licences exclusively to car manufacturers) by several of Daimler's main competitors serves as a further indication that focusing on the value of the protected technology for the end product is reasonable also in the automotive sector [32] .


Furthermore, the Court found that the assertion of patent claims against Daimler by Nokia was not discriminatory and could, therefore, not justify Daimler's insistence that licences must be taken by its suppliers Ibid, paras. 201-212.

The Court explained that the patent holder is, basically, allowed to freely choose the stage of the supply chain, at which it will assert its rights [34] . The same is true with respect to patent holders with a dominant market position, since competition law does not per se limit this possibility [34] . What is more, a dominant patent holder is not obliged to offer all potential licensees a 'standard-rate' [34] . The non-discrimination obligation established by Article 102 TFEU intends to prevent a distortion of competition in upstream or downstream markets, but does not exclude different treatment of licensees, if sufficient justification exists [35] .

In the present case, the Court saw no indication that Nokia's claim to use the end-product as a royalty base could impact competition [36] . Especially the fact that in the automotive sector it is common that suppliers take licences for components sold to car manufacturers, does not require Nokia to change its practice, not least because the licences granted by the Avanci platform to Daimler's competitors show that the respective practice -which is prevailing in the telecommunications sector- has already been applied also in the automotive field [37] . Furthermore, the Court did not consider that the assertion of SEPs against end-device manufacturers could lead to limitations in production, sales and technical development to the detriment of consumers [38] . In this respect, the Court referred to so-called 'have-made-rights' which according to the ETSI IPR Policy should be included in a FRAND licence and allow component manufacturers to produce, sell and develop their products [39] .

SEP holder's offer / information duty

Furthermore, the Court held that Daimler could not justify its unwillingness to obtain a licence by claiming that Nokia had refused to provide sufficient information concerning its licensing offers Ibid, paras. 216 et seqq.

The Court pointed out that the SEP holder can be obliged to substantiate the FRAND conformity of its licensing request [41] . In case that the patent holder has already concluded agreements with third licensees on non-standard terms, it will be, as a rule, under a duty to disclose and present –at least– the content of the key contractual provisions in a way, which would allow the implementer to assess whether it has been offered different commercial conditions [41] . The scope and level of detail of the respective duty shall be determined on a case-by-case basis [41] .

Considering this, the Court expressed the view that Nokia had provided sufficient information to Daimler, by sharing –among other things– a study on the value of connectivity for vehicles and a licensing agreement signed with another major car manufacturer [42] . In this context, the Court denied that Nokia was under a duty to disclose licensing agreements with smartphone manufacturers to Daimler. The Court rejected the notion that the SEP holder's information duty extends to the full content of every licensing agreement previously signed and that the SEP holder is obliged to disclose all existing agreements [43] . Adding to that, the Court noted that licensing agreements from the telecommunications sector are not relevant for the assessment of FRAND conformity of licences in the automotive field [43] .

FRAND defence raised by suppliers

Apart from the above, the Court also highlighted that Daimler could not profit from the FRAND defences raised by its suppliers that joined the proceedings Ibid, paras. 232 et seqq.

The Court left the question open whether an end-device manufacturer that has been sued can, in principle, rely on a FRAND defence raised by one of its suppliers, or not. According to the Court, this would, however, in any case require that the supplier is willing to obtain a licence from the patent holder calculated on basis of the value of the patent(s) in question for the end-product (and not for the component it produces) [45] . This had not been the case in the present proceedings [46] .

The Court did not ignore that it can be challenging for suppliers to pass on the royalty fees paid to the SEP holder to their clients [47] . However, the contractual arrangements of third parties (here: the arrangements between suppliers and end-device manufacturers) should not, in the eyes of the Court, direct the SEP holder towards licencing agreements that do not allow a participation in the value created by the patented technology for the end-product [47] .

C. Other issues

Finally, the Court held that -contrary to the recommendation of the Cartel Office – there was no need to suspend the proceedings and refer certain questions revolving around whether the SEP holders' FRAND commitment establishes a direct claim for everyone within a value chain to be granted a bilateral licence (License-to-all approach), or just a claim to have access to the standardised technology (Access-to-all approach), to the CJEU.

The Court left this question open, since neither Daimler nor its suppliers were willing to obtain a licence on FRAND terms from Nokia based on the value of the protected technology for the cars manufactured by Daimler  Ibid, paras. 253 and 291. The Court also noted that the fact that the patent-in-suit would expire in few years from now would also speak against ordering a stay of the proceedings [49]

  • [1] Nokia v Daimler, District Court of Mannheim, judgment dated 18 August 2020, Case-No. 2 O 34/19
  • [2] Ibid, paras. 49-136
  • [3] Ibid, para. 138
  • [4] Huawei v ZTE, Court of Justice of the EU, judgment dated 16 July 2015, Case No. C-170/13
  • [5] Nokia v Daimler, District Court of Mannheim, judgment dated 18 August 2020, Case-No. 2 O 34/19, para. 144
  • [6] Ibid, para. 146
  • [7] Ibid, para. 147
  • [8] Ibid, para. 148
  • [9] Ibid, para. 149
  • [10] Ibid, para. 152
  • [11] Ibid, paras. 151-156
  • [12] Ibid, para. 248
  • [13] Ibid, paras. 153 et seq
  • [14] Ibid, para. 154
  • [15] Ibid, para. 155
  • [16] Ibid, paras. 157-231
  • [17] Ibid, para. 158
  • [18] Ibid, para. 159
  • [19] Ibid, para. 161
  • [20] Ibid, para. 197-199
  • [21] Ibid, paras. 157, 160 and 162-164
  • [22] Ibid, paras. 160 and 165-168
  • [23] Ibid, para. 169
  • [24] Ibid, para. 170
  • [25] Ibid, para. 171
  • [26] Ibid, para. 172
  • [27] Ibid, para. 173
  • [28] Ibid, paras. 174 et seqq
  • [29] Ibid, paras. 174
  • [30] Ibid, paras. 177
  • [31] Ibid, para. 180
  • [32] Ibid, paras. 187 et seqq
  • [33] Ibid, paras. 201-212
  • [34] Ibid, para. 202
  • [35] Ibid, para. 203
  • [36] Ibid, para. 205
  • [37] Ibid, para. 210
  • [38] Ibid, para. 213
  • [39] Ibid, para. 215
  • [40] Ibid, paras. 216 et seqq
  • [41] Ibid, para. 217
  • [42] Ibid, para. 218
  • [43] Ibid, para. 230
  • [44] Ibid, paras. 232 et seqq
  • [45] Ibid, paras. 234 and 236 et seqq
  • [46] Ibid, paras. 240 et seqq
  • [47] Ibid, para. 239
  • [48]  Ibid, paras. 253 and 291
  • [49] Ibid, para. 291.