2026-04-10 - LD Paris - Orange v. HMD Global - UPC_CFI_301/2025

ENGLISH: The Rules of Procedure provide no provision for a FRAND defence, unlike in the case of a counterclaim for revocation or an application to amend the patent, where the number and content of the pleadings are precisely set out (see Rule 29 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure, or Rule 30 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure). Concerning the FRAND defence, the Judge-Rapporteur must therefore apply the general principles of ‘fairness’ and of adversarial proceedings set out in the preamble to the RoP (point 2). Consequently, without having to verify whether the arguments put forward by the counterclaimant in the FRAND defence were new or not, it is appropriate, in the interests of ‘fairness’ to allow the counter-defendant to respond last on the FRAND defence and thus to allow it to submit its written response on this point.

Procedural order in SEP infringement action addressing the gap in the RoP regarding FRAND defense pleadings. The Paris LD held that unlike counterclaims for revocation or patent amendment applications, the FRAND defense has no dedicated procedural framework in the RoP. Applying fairness and adversarial principles from the RoP preamble, the court granted Orange the right to respond last on FRAND as counter-defendant to that defense, without needing to assess whether HMD's FRAND arguments were new matter.