2025-08-21 - LD Hamburg - Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung v. HMD Global

1. The time limit for responding to the statement of defense under Rule 23 of the Rules of Procedure is already set at a level that allows for the clarification of the facts and internal coordination—even across vacation periods—in international patent disputes falling within the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court. 2. If, in SEP proceedings, a license offer has been made by the claimant or the license pool in which it participates for several years, and a counteroffer has been made by the defendant, the fact that not only bilateral negotiations but also pool negotiations play a role in antitrust defense does not justify an extension of the time limit for responding to the complaint.

JR Schilling (Hamburg LD) rejected HMD Global's request for a one-month deadline extension for the defense statement in a SEP infringement action brought by Fraunhofer (AAC pool). The court held that the 3-month defense deadline under R. 23 RoP is already designed for complex international patent disputes, including over holiday periods. In SEP cases where licensing offers and counteroffers have been on the table for years (here since 2017/2018), the FRAND defense complexity does not justify an extension — the defendant is not caught by surprise. The fact that pool-level negotiations add complexity is insufficient when the defendant has been in contact for eight years. Holiday absences of individual contacts are not grounds for extension. The JR proactively suggested parties align on NDA coverage for FRAND submissions.