2026-11-06 - LD Hamburg - Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung v. Acer et al. - UPC-CFI-0002231/2025

1. The fact, that there is another case with another pool contributor pending against the same Defendants, who raised a FRAND defence in both cases, does not justify postponing the - already scheduled - oral hearing against the general objective of the UPC that an oral hearing shall be conducted within one year (Preamble Nr. 7 of RoP). 2. The outcome of a Rate Setting Counterclaim at another Local Division is not prejudicial for the present dispute, as the parties are not identical. The factual implications of the two cases are mutual; any decision on a FRAND defence against a pool contributor, be it by a UPC panel or by a national Court, is of factual interest for the next decision.

R. 334 RoP; request to adjourn; FRAND defence; Counterclaim for Rate Setting.

The judge-rapporteur of the Hamburg Local Division rejected the defendants' request under R. 334(b) RoP to adjourn the scheduled oral hearing in an infringement action on a patent licensed through the Vectis Opus pool, and their alternative request for a split hearing on the FRAND defence. Adjournment is a discretionary case management decision weighing the aims of the UPCA and the RoP, including the one-year target for the oral hearing in Preamble No. 7 RoP, against the parties' interests. A rate-setting counterclaim brought against the pool administrator in separate proceedings before the LD The Hague by a different pool contributor's opponents is not prejudicial, because the parties are not identical; each panel must examine the FRAND defence before it on its own, and decisions in parallel FRAND proceedings are of mutual factual interest only. Any hardship from an injunction can be met by a period for enforceability under R. 352 RoP or a request for suspensive effect on appeal.