2026-03-18 - LD Düsseldorf - Beko et al. v. Dolby et al. - UPC_CFI_135/2024, UPC_CFI_477/2024

GERMAN: 1. Eine beherrschende Stellung im Sinne von Art. 102 AEUV auf dem relevanten Markt kann sich daraus ergeben, dass ohne eine Lizenz am Streitpatent keine Produkte (hier Smart-TVs) angeboten werden können, die mit einem gängigen Standard kompatibel sind. Entscheidend ist dabei die Erwartungshaltung des Verbrauchers, dass Smart-TVs alle gängigen Audio- und Video-Codecs umfassen und dadurch alle Inhalte decodieren können, die von den Anbietern von Diensten entsprechend codiert wurden. 2. Im Hinblick auf die grundlegende Einordnung des FRAND-Verhandlungsprogramms nach Huawei v. ZTE schließt sich die Lokalkammer Düsseldorf den Lokalkammern Mannheim (UPC_CFI_210/2023, Entscheidung vom 22. November 2024 – Panasonic v. OPPO) und München (UPC_CFI_9/2023, Entscheidung vom 18. Dezember 2024 – Huawei v. Netgear) an. Soweit Unterschiede zwischen beiden Lokalkammern in der Anwendung der Grundsätze nach Huawei v. ZTE bestehen, kommt es auf diese in dem von der Lokalkammer Düsseldorf entschiedenen Fall nicht an. 3. Fehlt in Anwendung des Verhandlungsprogramms nach Huawei v. ZTE die initiale Bekundung der Lizenzwilligkeit durch den Verletzer („Schritt 2“), nachdem der Patentinhaber diesen auf die Patentverletzung hingewiesen hat („Schritt 1“), ist die Prüfung beendet. Die Frage, ob das Angebot des Patentinhabers FRAND ist, bedarf dann keiner Untersuchung mehr. ENGLISH: 1. A dominant position within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU on the relevant market may arise if products (here: smart TVs) that are compatible with a common standard cannot be offered without a licence for the patent in suit. The decisive factor is that consumers expect that smart TVs include all common audio and video codecs and can therefore decode all content that is encoded accordingly by service providers used for encoding. 2. Regarding the fundamental classification of the FRAND negotiation programme after Huawei v. ZTE, the Düsseldorf Local Division agrees with the Mannheim Local Division (UPC_CFI_210/2023, Decision of 22 November 2024 – Panasonic v. OPPO) and the Munich Local Division (UPC_CFI_9/2023, Decision of 18 December 2024 – Huawei v. Netgear). Any differences between the two Local Divisions in the application of the principles under Huawei v. ZTE are irrelevant in the case decided by the Düsseldorf Local Division. 3. In accordance with the negotiation programme established in Huawei v. ZTE, if the infringer fails to initially express its willingness to conclude a licensing agreement (“step 2”), in response to a compliant notification of infringement/invitation thereto (“step 1”), the examination is terminated. In this case, the question of whether the patent holder’s offer is FRAND does not need to be investigated.

The Düsseldorf Local Division decided a standard-essential patent infringement action on the merits together with a revocation counterclaim. It held that Art. 102 TFEU binds a SEP holder even where that holder never gave a FRAND undertaking to a standardisation body, and that dominance on the licensing market follows where a device cannot be marketed without a licence because consumers expect it to decode every common codec. It then aligned itself with the Mannheim and Munich Local Divisions on the Huawei v ZTE negotiation framework and held that where the implementer never expressed willingness to take a FRAND licence before the action (step 2), the examination ends and the FRAND character of the patentee's offer need not be assessed. The exhaustion defence failed because the implementer pleaded no placing on the market inside the European Union and because the two-tier licensing model expressly requires the device maker to take a separate licence. All validity grounds failed, and the Court granted an injunction, recall, removal from the channels of commerce, destruction, an Art. 67 UPCA information and accounting order including copies of invoices, and a declaration of liability in damages, while refusing publication of the decision.