Tilman Pfrang, LL.M. | 31st December 2024
1. FRAND Developments in Munich
The Munich Local Division underscored implementer obligations in FRAND disputes, emphasizing the need for prompt counteroffers, adequate security, and clear disclosure of SEP use. Failure to meet these obligations can lead to limited review of the SEP holder’s licensing offer. While the court aligned with the Huawei v. ZTE framework, it highlighted procedural strictness that places the burden on implementers.
2. FRAND Precedents in Mannheim
The Mannheim Local Division set a significant precedent in Panasonic v. Oppo, focusing on good-faith negotiations under the FRAND framework. The court clarified that implementers must show unconditional willingness to conclude a license, and fragmented jurisdictional proposals will not suffice. This decision aligns with traditional German jurisprudence but establishes a robust foundation for UPC SEP litigation.
3. Common General Knowledge at the UPC
The Paris Central Division provided insights into the treatment of common general knowledge in patent validity disputes. The Central Division rejected an overly expansive view of common general knowledge, holding that it must be widely accepted and easily accessible. This decision reflects a commitment to a stricter evidentiary standard.
4. Revocation Action in Paris
The Paris Central Division reaffirmed the importance of the “front-loaded” procedural system under the Rules of Procedure (RoP) of the UPC. Parties must present their full case, including all relevant facts and evidence, as early as possible. However, the Court underscored that this principle must be balanced with proportionality and procedural efficiency, ensuring that parties are not burdened with unnecessary tasks or excessive documentation.