2026-05-01 - LD The Hague - Dolby v. Acer et al. - UPC-CFI-0001536/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC-CFI-0001536/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- Dolby International AB v. CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
Kernaussage: In an infringement action over EP 3 079 153 (essential to the Opus audio codec, part of the Vectis Opus Patent Pool of Dolby, Fraunhofer and NTT), accompanied by a revocation counterclaim and a 'counterclaim for rate-setting', the judge-rapporteur of the LD The Hague issued an a…
2026-05-01 - LD The Hague - Dolby
v.
Acer et al. - UPC-CFI-0001536/2025
notable
In an infringement action over EP 3 079 153 (essential to the Opus audio codec, part of the Vectis Opus Patent Pool of Dolby, Fraunhofer and NTT), accompanied by a revocation counterclaim and a 'counterclaim for rate-setting', the judge-rapporteur of the LD The Hague issued an active-case-management order deciding several procedural questions. It admitted Vectis IP as intervener supporting Dolby (R. 313/314 RoP, unopposed) and held that the rate-setting counterclaim may be directed against Vectis: leaving R. 305 RoP undecided, R. 315.4 RoP makes plain that an intervener is treated as a party unless otherwise ordered, and Art. 47 UPCA limits only who may bring an action, not who may be joined — Vectis's lack of patent ownership going to the substance, not admissibility. Under R. 190 RoP and its active-case-management powers (R. 331-334, R. 103(c) RoP), the Court ordered the SEP owner/pool to produce concluded comparable licences to assess the FRANDness of the offer/counteroffer, noting that the Huawei v ZTE framework or similar principles may apply even though the patent is not subject to a FRAND declaration. Only comparable licences are relevant to non-discrimination, but the SEP holder/pool may not cherry-pick — the net must be cast sufficiently wide, only clearly non-comparable licences excluded, with an external-eyes-only first step and adverse inferences available. Access was governed by a two-tier confidentiality regime (Confidential / Highly Confidential Information) under R. 262A and R. 262.2 RoP. On timing, the Court rejected the argument that deadlines only start once all redacted material is accessible where the information was already under an agreed confidentiality obligation (distinguishing EOFlow v Insulet, where it was not), granting only a one-week extension so time runs from 3 April 2026, and set the rate-setting counterclaim schedule equal to that of the revocation counterclaim.