2026-07-08 - 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 a SEP/FRAND infringement action, the Hague Local Division panel (Brinkman presiding) denied a R.
2026-07-08 - LD The Hague - Dolby
v.
Acer et al. - UPC-CFI-0001536/2025
notable
In a SEP/FRAND infringement action, the Hague Local Division panel (Brinkman presiding) denied a R. 333 RoP review of the judge-rapporteur's order allowing the defendants' 'counterclaim for rate-setting' to be directed at an intervener — Vectis IP, a pool administrator that had voluntarily intervened in support of claimant Dolby. The panel held that under R. 315.4 RoP an intervener is treated as a party unless the Court orders otherwise, so as a matter of principle a counterclaim may be directed at it; and, applying the equal-treatment principle (CoA Strabag), a counterclaim directed at the party the intervener supports may also be directed at the intervener. Because counterclaims concerning licences are a related defence to an infringement action (Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA) and the intervener is bound by the decision (R. 316.3 RoP), it would be anomalous to let Vectis co-defend Dolby while forcing the defendants into fresh proceedings against Vectis for a rate-setting order on partly the same patents. Vectis's lack of standing to bring an action (Art. 47 UPCA), and questions of its dominant position or FRAND commitment, go to substance not admissibility. In the alternative, relying on R. 305 RoP, the Court added Vectis as a proper party on Dolby's side, and — the point being undecided by the Court of Appeal and of wider impact — granted leave to appeal.