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

Was ist diese UPC-Entscheidung?

Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division found infringement of an Opus audio-codec patent, dismissed the revocation counterclaim and rejected the FRAND defence at the second step of the Huawei v ZTE framework. Three points make the decision significant. First, a dominant position under Article 102 TFEU can rest on consumer expectation: smart TVs are expected to decode all common audio and video codecs, so a patent without which no Opus-compatible product can be offered confers dominance on the upstream licensing market, and mandatory use of the standard is not required. Second, the Division expressly aligns itself with the Mannheim and Munich Local Divisions on the basic classification of the Huawei v ZTE negotiation programme, holding that the framework is not a purely economic rate-setting exercise but a programme of reciprocal duties whose observance determines whether enforcement is abusive; differences between those two divisions did not matter here. Third, where the implementer never expresses willingness to take a licence after a compliant infringement notice, the examination ends at that step and the FRAND character of the patentee's offer need not be examined at all. On the facts the defendants let the notice go unanswered for two and a half months and, even in the defence, asserted only that a royalty of zero would be FRAND, which is not an expression of willingness. Notably the patentee had given no FRAND declaration at all, having taken no part in standardising Opus; the Division held that this leaves Article 102 TFEU applicable regardless, and left open whether the Huawei v ZTE steps apply unmodified in such a case, since the defence failed even if they do.

Quelle und Fundstellen

Quelle: UPC Case File

Aktenzeichen: UPC_CFI_135/2024