Kather Augenstein FRAND database

On this webpage we have compiled the decisions of the German courts on standard essential patents for you. We have reduced these decisions to the FRAND-essential positions and offer them to you for download. The German patent jurisdiction is appreciated beyond the borders of Germany. For this reason, we would also like to give our English-speaking clients and colleagues the opportunity to take note of German FRAND-decisions. Accordingly, we have taken the time for you to translate these decisions into English.

We have not translated decisions that are similar in content or are dealt with at the respective Court of Appeal. However, in order to give you an overview of all FRAND-decisions of German Courts known to us, you will find a list of untranslated decisions at the end of this page.

Share this page:

Regional Court Düsseldorf

Regional Court Düsseldorf, 26 November 2020, docket no. 4c O 17/19

  • The CJEU is asked to clarify whether the SEP holder who has made a FRAND declaration is obliged to license suppliers on a priority basis.
  • In addition, the district court seeks clarification on,
    • whether the parties’ respectively ommited obligations can be remedied in the on-going infringement proceedings, and
    • what requirements are to be placed on the SEP user’s request for a licence.
DE 4c O 17/19
EN 4c O 17/19

Regional Court Düsseldorf, 24 April 2019, docket no. 4c O 24/19

  • The PI decision is important for the development of FRAND litigation because it proves how trade secrets can be protected in German SEP infringement proceedings
  • The Respondents had concluded an NDA for litigation purposes with the Petitioner, the SEP proprietor, based on the text proposed by the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, decision of 17.01.2016, file no. I-2 U 31/16, and undertook to use the documents marked as strictly confidential exclusively for procedural purposes in the FRAND proceedings
  • When the Respondents announced that they would disclose information covered by the NDA in parallel proceedings, which concerned non-essential patents, the 4c. Civil Chamber issued an ex parte injunction against the Respondents because of a contractual injunctive relief on the basis of the NDA and because of danger of first ascent and stopped them from disclosing the information
DE 4c O 24/19
EN 4c O 24/19

Regional Court Düsseldorf, 09 November 2018, docket no. 4a O 15/17 – Fraunhofer Gesellschaft (MPEG LA) ./. ZTE

  • Sole availability on website does not constitute offer of a standard license agreement; only the delivery of the contract does constitute such an offer
  • Offer of a pool license in general fair and reasonable as the license seeker saves the costs for licensing the property rights individually
  • If group licenses are customary and the parent company rejects such licenses, the counteroffer of a wholly owned subsidiary of the parent company is not FRAND
DE 4a O 15/17
EN 4a O 15/17

Regional Court Düsseldorf, 09 November 2018, docket no. 4a O 17/17 – Tagivan II ./. Huawei

  • This is the case if the unit license accommodates the expected fluctuations and if, according to the contract, the licensor bears the risk of an increase in the pool patents and the licensee the risk of minimization
  • Offering a license in a patent pool does not in itself constitute an accusation of abusive inappropriateness; this is fair and reasonable because it relieves the licensee of the need to request a license from each individual holder of an IP right
  • A patent pool is not composed contrary to antitrust law because it contains standard and non-standard essential patents. Inappropriate treatment may be considered, however, if a pool systematically includes intellectual property rights that are not necessary for compliance with the standard
DE 4a O 17/17
EN 4a O 17/17

Regional Court Düsseldorf, 11 July 2018, docket no. 4c O 81/17

  • First two steps fulfilled: Notice of infringement and declaration of willingness to conclude license agreement
  • In accordance with procedural delay provisions patentee can rectify missed acts in FRAND negotiations
  • Patentee discriminates Defendant by bringing actions against him and two main competitors while not bringing actions against other competitors (selective enforcement)
  • Patentee does not have to sue large number of companies at the same time but he has to at least send notice of infringement requesting license agreements
  • Issue of exhaustion not adequately addressed; license offers must in principle take into account a possible objection of exhaustion in order to be FRAND
DE 4c O 81/17
EN 4c O 81/17

Regional Court Düsseldorf, 13 July 2017, docket no. 4a O 16/16

  • Regarding possibility to rectify missed acts in negotiation; no necessity to decide in present procedure since offers of Plaintiff were too late anyway
  • Regarding requirements for details on how the license rate is being calculated, especially to which extent the Plaintiff needs to produce evidence on comparable license agreements
DE 4a O 16/16
EN 4a O 16/16

Regional Court Düsseldorf, 31 March 2016, docket no. 4a O 73/14 – Saint Lawrence ./. Vodafone

  • Parallel proceeding to Regional Court Düsseldorf docket no. 4a O 126/14
  • Distinction between transitional and non-transitional cases
  • FRAND obligations may be rectified in transitional cases
  • Infringer must declare willingness to license in due time, depending on the individual case (corresponding to degree of detail); here 5 month clearly too long
  • Other license agreements can be used to justify FRAND conformity if they show established licensing practice
  • Portfolio licensing possible
DE 4a O 73/14
EN 4a O 73/14

Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf

Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, 12 May 2022, docket no. I-2 U 13/21 

  • A distinction must be made between the infringer’s basic (general) willingness to take a FRAND license and its will to comply with specific license FRAND-conditions.
  • At the stage of the licence request, only the Defendant’s general will to become a licensee needs to be verified. In contrast, the concrete willingness to take a license is only at issue once the license offer of the patent proprietor has been identified as FRAND.
  • The request for licensing can be made in a general, informal and also implied manner. However, the conduct must clearly indicate to the potential licensor the general intention to take a licence.
  • Mere lip service, i.e. licence requests that are clearly not motivated by a serious intention to licence, but are merely intended to slow down the patent holder and delay legal action, is not sufficient.
  • If the infringer categorically insists on not entering into a certain, obviously appropriate licensing model (e.g. a pool licence) and instead adamantly demands a bilateral individual licence, although there are no justifying reasons for this, this can be an indication of his unwillingness to take a license.
  • If there is no general willingness to take a license, the patent proprietor’s offer must not be examined as to whether it is FRAND-compliant. In this respect, there is a difference to the absence of the infringers specific willingness to take a license.
DE I-2 U 13/21
EN I-2 U 13/21

Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, 07 February 2022, docket no. I-2 U 27/21 

  • An AASI has to be objectively necessary for effective legal protection.
  • Without a request for an anti-suit injunction, without specific indications of an intention to do so or without pending proceedings on the merits between the parties in an ASI injunction, the requirements are not met.
  • A patent user who has filed a request for the issuance of an ASI is considered to be manifestly unwilling to license.
DE I-2 U 27/21
EN I-2 U 27/21

Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, 22 March 2019, docket no. I-2 U 31/16 – Unwired Planet ./. Huawei

  • Purchaser is bound to licensing practice – also in terms of amount and content – as long as license agreements of former owner are in force and also without an expressed / implied declaration
  • Contrary to foreign decisions patents are not being counted to evaluate patent portfolio. Instead the court looks at the value of the patented technology
  • Consequently, the purchasers offer is not necessarily proportionate to the number of sold patents
  • For the requirement of being “non-discriminatory” only license agreements that are still in effect are relevant
  • One must differentiate between license agreements that contain cross-licenses and license agreements that are without grant-back value – comparability only within each group
  • A patent transfer contract is not subject to Art. 101 TFEU unless it contains an anticompetitive clause as the contract aims at the exchange of services
  • Both parties have filed an appeal to the FCJ which might be the FCJs first decision on FRAND since the CJEUs Huawei ./. ZTE decision in 2015
DE I-2 U 31/16
EN I-2 U 31/16

Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, 25 April 2018, docket no. I-2 W 8/18

  • Any party to the proceedings, including any intervener, must – in principle – have access to the court file –  therefore party must take confidentiality precautions prior to proceedings
  • If party discloses information without precautions SEP-owner accepts that secrets come to knowledge by way of inspection
  • This also applies to intervener
DE I-2 W 8/18
EN I-2 W 8/18

Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, 18 July 2017, docket no. I-2 U 23/17

  • High degree of certainty regarding validity and infringement of SEP necessary
  • SEP owner failed to establish validity of SEP regarding high degree of certainty
  • Furthermore, urgency not given
  • Court expressing view on consequences if infringer refuses to sign NDA
  • Unjustified refusal of NDA may lead to reduction of the SEP owner’s burden of proof
DE I-2 U 23/17
EN I-2 U 23/17

Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, 29 June 2017, docket no. I-15 U 41/17 – Sisvel ./. Haier

DE I-15 U 41/17
EN I-15 U 41/17

Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, 30 March 2017, docket no. I-15 U 66/15 – Sisvel ./. Haier

  • Procedure set out by the CJEU in Huawei/ZTE also applies for “transitional cases”
  • FRAND obligations are to be performed consecutively; patent infringer has to express willingness to license only after the declaration of infringement as well as submit a FRAND-counteroffer only after the FRAND-offer
  • Appeal allowed and pending before Federal Court of Justice (docket no. KZR 36/17, not published yet)
  • Formal requirements regarding the FRAND-offer and consequences of FRAND-objection on claim for damages as well as information and exploitation (other opinion: Regional Court Mannheim)
DE I-15 U 66/15
EN I-15 U 66/15

Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, 09 May 2016, docket no. I-15 U 35/16 – Saint Lawrence ./. Vodafone

  • Appeal procedure to Regional Court Düsseldorf docket no. 4a O 126/14 and parallel proceeding to docket no. I-15 U 36/16 (appeal procedure to docket no. 4a O 73/14).
  • 5 months period until declaration of willingness
  • CJEU’s decision applies retrospectively and SEP owners cannot claim that they relied on the Orange-Book decision by the Federal Court of Justice
DE I-15 U 35/16
EN I-15 U 35/16

Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, 17 January 2016, docket no. I-2 U 31/16 – Unwired Planet ./. Huawei

DE I-2 U 31/16
EN I-2 U 31/16

Regional Court Mannheim

Regional Court Mannheim, 2. March 2021, docket no. 2 O 131/19 – LG ./. TCL

In FRAND negotiations, a counter-offer in which the infringer leaves an issue in dispute between the parties in limbo is usually inappropriate if this issue in dispute has a significant impact on the amount of the licence fee because the infringer’s obligation of performance cannot be quantified in a sufficiently concrete manner.
DE 2 O 131/19
EN 2 O 131/19

Regional Court Mannheim, 21 August 2020, docket no. 2 O 136/18 – IP Bridge ./. TCT Mobile

If the holder of a standard essential patent has made a license offer to the user and sufficiently explained it, and the user does not accept this license offer, the user’s counter-offer must meet FRAND criteria, without this obligation of the user being dependent on whether the SEP holder’s previous license offer actually met FRAND criteria.
DE 2 O 136/18
EN 2 O 136/18

Regional Court Mannheim, 18 August 2020, docket no. 2 O 34/19 – Nokia ./. Daimler

  • The user of a standard essential patent is generally not willing to take a license if the user refers the SEP holder to its suppliers for the conclusion of a license agreement
  • The SEP holder can in principle choose the distribution level at which to enforce the patent.
  • Irrespective of the selected distribution level, the SEP holder’s appropriate remuneration and thus ultimately the amount of the royalty must always be based on the saleable end product.
  • A counter-offer by the user which falls short of the FRAND requirements generally speaks against the user’s willingness to take a license.
DE 2 O 34/19
EN 2 O 34/19

Regional Court Mannheim, 4 September 2019, docket no. 7 O 115/16 

  • Confidentiality is allowable also in SEP licensing contracts. Obligations to disclose need to be balanced based on the parties’ interests and behaviour
  • Remedial of obligations is possible during the proceedings but requires a pressure-free situation (suspension, resting, no hearing date fixed). In particular, disclosure of licensing contracts can be remedied by proposing a corresponding order to the court
  • The RC Mannheim assesses FRAND with a “test of conduct” to identify whether the parties have complied with their respective obligations
  • The FRAND offer does not require mathematical precision but rather the SEP proprietor needs to point to the basic structural valuation methodology from which he/she derives the requested royalty rate
  • When assessing the overall contractual framework, it is important to take an overall view, so that a breach of antitrust obligations cannot normally be demonstrated by objections to individual clauses alone
  • Only if the license seeker substantiates the possibility of a discrimination the SEP proprietor will be ordered to substantiate on the comprehensibility of his offer by producing license agreements
  • When enforcing license schemes with a public pool structure (like MPEG or Sisvel Wireless) the burden of proof regarding the FRAND offer is lowered because of the fact that everyone is paying the same royalty rate
DE 7 O 115/16
EN 7 O 115/16

Regional Court Mannheim, 13 July 2018, docket no. 7 O 165/16 – IP Bridge ./. HTC

  • The enforceability of the claims for information/rendering account as well as damages on the merits remains unaffected by a FRAND declaration of commitment by the SEP holder
  • Even in the case of a limitation of the claim for damages (to FRAND license fee; not decisive in this case), the injured party can in principle demand the data required within the framework of rendering account
DE 7 O 165/16
EN 7 O 165/16

Regional Court Mannheim, 02 March 2018, docket no. 7 O 18/17

  • Plaintiff must make transparent to the defendants the facts on the basis of which it considers that the requested license rate in the license agreement offer is FRAND
  • Different market size of the licensee no objective reason for unequal treatment
DE 7 O 18/17
EN 7 O 18/17

Regional Court Mannheim, 10 November 2017, docket no. 7 O 28/16

  • The enforceability of the claims for information/rendering account as well as damages on the merits remains unaffected by a successful FRAND objection
DE 7 O 28/16
EN 7 O 28/16

Regional Court Mannheim, 17 November 2016, docket no. 7 O 19/16 – Philips ./. Archos

  • Facts why the calculation of the royalty rate is deemed FRAND must also be exlained pre-trial
  • If Plaintiff could catch-up on previously omitted steps in the course of the proceedings without being sanctioned, the guiding principle of the CJEU’s decision could no longer be accomplished
DE 7 O 19/16
EN 7 O 19/16

Regional Court Mannheim, 27 November 2015, docket no. 2 O 106/14 – Saint Lawrence ./. Deutsche Telekom

  • A counteroffer must be submitted irrespective of whether the preceding license offer made by the SEP holder itself is FRAND
  • If the alleged user does not furnish security after its counteroffer is rejected, whether or not its counteroffer was FRAND is no longer relevant
  • Patent ambush
DE 2 O 106/14
EN 2 O 106/14

Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe

OLG Karlsruhe, 12. Februar 2021, Az. 6 U 130/20 – Nokia ./. Daimler

  • Generally, with a contractual offer which leaves the determination of the licence fee to the SEP holder’s equitable discretion pursuant to Section 315 (3) German Civil Code (BGB), the infringer sufficiently expresses that they are willing to conclude a licence agreement which, at least with regard to the amount of the licence fees, complies with FRAND terms, whatever shape such licence fee may take.
DE 6 U 130/20
EN 6 U 130/20

Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe, 9 December 2020, docket no. 6 U 103/19 – Sisvel ./. Wiko

  • The proprietor of a standard-essential patent generally satisfies their obligations if they provide an offer that corresponds to FRAND conditions for the average licensee, and explain the offer in a way that enables the specific licence seeker to understand the considerations on which the amount of the licence fee and the further conditions are based and why the SEP proprietor considers the licence fee and the further conditions to be non-exploitative and non-discriminatory.
  • The patent user’s obligation to provide a counter-offer applies in any case already if the SEP holder’s licence offer is not clearly and unambiguously contrary to FRAND and the SEP holder has enabled the infringer, by explaining the offer and the FRAND compliance of the conditions claimed, to submit a counter-offer on FRAND terms.
  • Even below the threshold of being obliged to provide a counter-offer, the infringer is generally obliged to participate in licence agreement negotiations in a targeted manner. If the infringer breaches this obligation, they cannot, as a matter of principle, successfully counter the claims of the SEP holder with a FRAND objection.
  • This obligation of the infringer regularly includes taking advantage of information opportunities offered by the SEP holder and informing him of any objections in the course of the negotiations. A course of conduct which seeks to withhold objections as a means for later legal defence in a legal dispute is incompatible with this obligation.
DE 6 U 103/19
EN 6 U 103/19

Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe, 30 October 2019, docket no. 6 U 183/16 – Philips ./. Wiko

  • It is sufficient to address the infringement notice to the (parent) company of the group which is responsible for licensing negotiations. The SEP holder does not need to contact subsidiaries individually.
  • The infringement notice must enable the patent user to determine the quality of the infringement allegation and the need for a license. The patent user is generally expected to review the infringement notice within two months.
  • A breach of the SEP holder’s duties during the negotiations as well as obligations of the patent user can be rectified during the infringement proceedings.
  • The SEP holder must explain the content of the relevant contractual terms of such licence agreements with third parties which contain terms different from the FRAND offer. The patent user has no substantive claim for the production of the contracts.
  • The SEP holder’s accounting claim is not reduced by his infringement of negotiation obligations.
DE 6 U 183/16
EN 6 U 183/16

Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe, 08 September 2016 – docket no. 6 U 58/16 – Sony ./. Acer

  • SEP owner has wide scope for decision making regarding FRAND terms
  • The fact that the information to be provided is internal business information which must be kept secret from the Plaintiff in view of the competitive situation of the parties does not in itself justify the provisional suspension of enforcement
DE 6 U 58/16
EN 6 U 58/16

Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe, 29 August 2016, docket no. 6 U 57/16 – Philips ./. Acer

  • No constraint of right to information/rendering account to those details which are necessary for the calculation of damages in license analogy (divergent to Düsseldorf)
  • A suspension can only be considered if the chances of success of the new nullity action are obvious
DE 6 U 57/16
EN 6 U 57/16

Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe, 31 May 2016, docket no. 6 U 55/16 – Pioneer ./. Acer

  • The court cannot limit itself to an evidentiary review but rather must review whether or not the SEP owner’s offer meets FRAND terms and conditions
  • Granting motion for temporary suspension of enforcement
  • CJEU’s decision applies retrospectively and SEP owners cannot claim that they relied on the Orange-Book decision
DE 6 U 55/16
EN 6 U 55/16

Regional Court Munich

Guidelines on the Handling of the FRAND Defence Pursuant to Huawei v. ZTE Within the Munich Patent Infringement Proceedings (As of February 2020)

FRAND Hinweise
FRAND Guidelines

Guidelines for Handling Requests for Confidentiality During and Outside the Oral Proceedings in patent litigation before the Munich I Regional Court (As of February 2020)


Regional Court Munich, 24 June 2021, docket no. 7 O 36/21 – IP Bridge ./. Huawei

The risk of first infringement necessary for an anti-anti-suit injunction, can exist even where the respondent has not yet applied for or obtained an anti-suit injunction against the applicant.
DE 7 O 36/21
EN 7 O 36/21

Regional Court Munich, 25 February 2021, docket no. 7 O 14276/20 – InterDigital ./. Xiaomi

An alleged patent infringer who files an application for the issuance of an anti-suit injunction (ASI), or threatens to do so, cannot, as a rule, be regarded as sufficiently willing to obtain a license within the meaning of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Federal Court of Justice.

  • Previous applications for the issuance of an ASI were argued on the grounds of protecting an action on the merits in the issuing state. This action on the merits in turn was based on the argument that the patent user is willing to take a license.
  • However, if the patent user is really willing to take a license, that user will refrain from further unlawful interference with the patent owner’s rights.
  • Since the German court does not examine the FRAND offer of the patent owner due to the lack of willingness of the defendant, there is no conflict with the royalty setting by the Chinese court.
DE 7 O 14276/20
EN 7 O 14276/20

Regional Court Munich, 10 September 2020, docket no. 7 O 8818/19 – Sharp ./. Daimler

  • A FRAND Undertaking does not oblige the SEP holder to license to anyone, but only to grant access to the standardised technology.
  • An SEP holder does not in principle abuse its position if it initially offers an SEP portfolio licence only to the manufacturer of the end product (no “licence-to-all”).
  • The qualified willingness to take a licence requires a declaration by the implementer that it wishes to take out a licence on “whatever terms may in fact be FRAND”. Whether this is the case depends on an assessment of the overall behaviour of the parties.
DE 7 O 8818/19
EN 7 O 8818/19

Regional Court Munich, 11 July 2019, docket no. 21 O 9333/19 – Order Nokia ./. Continental AG

  • The Respondent is not allowed to pursue any measures, that would impede the assertion of rights by the Applicant in Germany, especially the pursue of an anti-suit injunction against the Applicant in a parallel proceeding in the US
  • A foreign proceeding, which aims at depriving the Applicant of his right of action in Germany, constitutes an unlawful infringement of the rights of the Applicant
  • The unlawfulness is to be evaluated on the basis of the German legal system, the lawfulness does not result from the lawfulness of an anti-suit injunction in the US
DE 21 O 9333/19
EN 21 O 9333/19

Higher Regional Court Munich

Higher Regional Court Munich, 12 December 2019, docket no. 6 U 5042/19 – Nokia ./. Continental

DE 6 U 5042/19
EN 6 U 5042/19

Federal Court of Justice

Federal Court of Justice, 24 November 2020, docket no. KZR 35/17 – Sisvel ./. Haier II

  • The owner of a standard-essential patent (SEP) suing for injunctive relief does not abuse its market power if the infringer has not unequivocally indicated that it will seek a licence on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.
  • The willingness of the infringer to license, just as the willingness of the patent proprietor to license, must not be exhausted by a one-time expression of interest in licensing or the submission of a (counter-) offer. Rather, both parties are required to contribute to the conclusion of a licence agreement on FRAND terms in good faith and in a manner appropriate to the situation.
  • Outside the scope of the protection of succession under Section 15 (3) Patent Act, objections against the former patentee cannot be raised against its individual successor in title. This applies in particular to the objection of patent ambush.
DE KZR 35/17
EN KZR 35/17

Federal Court of Justice, 5 May 2020, docket no. KZR 36/17 – Sisvel ./. Haier

    • The patent holder’s dominant position exists if the patent at issue is standard essential patent and its technical teaching cannot be circumvented by a different design of the infringing product. The market-dominating position ends with the expiry of the patent’s term of protection.
    • The SEP holder’s notice of infringement may be limited to the mention of the patent allegedly used, the act of infringement and the specific attacked embodiment. Claim Charts are permissible. The infringement notice may also be addressed to the group parent company.
    • The user of the standard essential patent has in principle the obligation to clearly and unambiguously declare the willingness and readiness to conclude a license agreement with the patent holder on FRAND terms. The user must also work towards the conclusion of a contract in a purposeful manner.
    • The offer of a portfolio license agreement is generally unobjectionable under antitrust law if the licensee is not obliged to pay for the use of non-standard essential patents and the remuneration is calculated in such a way that users who wish to develop a product for a specific, geographically limited area are not disadvantaged.
    • The SEP holder’s claim for damages is not generally limited according to the standard of the licence analogy. However, the infringer may counter the patentee’s claim for damages with a claim for damages of his own based on the non-performance of his right to conclude a licence agreement on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.
DE KZR 36/17
EN KZR 36/17

Federal Court of Justice, 14 January 2020, docket no. X ZR 33/19 – Order Unwired Planet ./. Huawei

    • Any party to the proceedings can submit documents designated as “strictly confidential” to the court file with the reservation that unredacted copies may only transferred to the opponent if and once a suitable NDA is concluded.
    • If no NDA is concluded, the documents filed with such reservation are exempted from file inspection of the opponent – but only the redacted versions are considered by the Court.
DE X ZR 33/19
EN X ZR 33/19

Further decisions

Regional Court Düsseldorf

Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf

Regional Court Mannheim

      • LG Mannheim 7 O 66/15
      • LG Mannheim 7 O 38/14
      • LG Mannheim 7 O 24/14
      • LG Mannheim 7 O 96/14
      • LG Mannheim 7 O 26/14
      • LG Mannheim 7 O 209/15
      • LG Mannheim 7 O 298/15
      • LG Mannheim 2 O 130/15
      • LG Mannheim 2 O 229/15
      • LG Mannheim 7 O 43/16
      • LG Mannheim 7 O 44/16
      • LG Mannheim 7 O 213/15
      • LG Mannheim 7 O 212/15
      • LG Mannheim 7 O 31/16
      • LG Mannheim 7 O 98/16
      • LG Mannheim 2 O 98/16