{"id":3009,"date":"2022-12-22T09:03:49","date_gmt":"2022-12-22T09:03:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com\/?page_id=3009"},"modified":"2025-07-16T11:11:08","modified_gmt":"2025-07-16T11:11:08","slug":"frand-database","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com\/en\/latest-news\/frand-database\/","title":{"rendered":"FRAND database"},"content":{"rendered":"\t<section class=\"section big-visual parallax\" data-parallax-min-screen-width=\"768\">\n\t\t<picture class=\"big-visual__image-container\"><source srcset=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2022\/12\/KA-6376-1-414x221.jpg\" width=\"414\" height=\"221\" media=\"(max-width: 414px)\" \/><source srcset=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2022\/12\/KA-6376-1-767x410.jpg\" width=\"767\" height=\"410\" media=\"(max-width: 767px)\" \/><img fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2022\/12\/KA-6376-1-1920x650.jpg\" width=\"1920\" height=\"650\" alt=\"\" class=\"big-visual__image parallax__load-image\" loading=\"edge\" \/><\/picture>\n\t\t<div class=\"big-visual__content-container\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"big-visual__content parallax__item\" data-parallax-type=\"move\" data-parallax-orientation=\"up\" data-parallax-distance=\"70%\">\n\t\t\t\t<h1 class=\"big-visual__title \">FRAND<strong> Database.<\/strong><\/h1>\n\t\t\t\t<p class=\"big-visual__text\"><\/p>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/section>\n\n\n\t<section class=\"section text-box text-box--variant-1 \">\n\t\t\t\t\t<h2 class=\"h1\">\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"subline\">Kather Augenstein.<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tFRAND Database<\/h2>\n\t\t\n\t\t<div class=\"fusion-text fusion-text-1\">\n<p class=\"text--intro\">Here we have compiled the central decisions on standard-essential patents before of the German courts and the Unified Patent Court for you. We have shortened these decisions to the essential passages for you and make them available for download.<\/p>\n<p>German patent jurisdiction is also appreciated beyond the borders of Germany. Therefore, we would also like to give our English-speaking clients and colleagues the opportunity to take note of the German decisions. Accordingly, we have taken the time to translate these decisions into English for you.<\/p>\n<p>We have not translated decisions which are similar in content or which have been dealt with by second-instance courts. Nevertheless, to give you an overview of the decisions of German courts known to us, you will find a list of the untranslated decisions at the end of this page.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/section>\n\n\n\t<section class=\"section text-box text-box--variant-1 \">\n\t\t\n\t\t<h2><strong>European Commission<\/strong><\/h2>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/section>\n\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>European Commission, Amicus Curiae Brief, 15 April 2024<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download: <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2024-04-15-Amicus-Curiae-Brief-EN-Translation.pdf\">\u00a0Amicus Curiae Brief (EN-Translation)<\/a> \u00a0<a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2024-04-15-Amicus-Curiae-Brief-DE-Original.pdf\">Amicus Curiae Brief (DE-Original)<\/a><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tStatement of the European Commission on the abuse of a dominant market position by filing an action for injunctive relief on the basis of an SEP \u2013 interpretation of the steps from CJEU, decision dated 16 July 2015, C-170\/13 &#8211; Huawei .\/. ZTE\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<p>In its Amicus Curiae Brief, the European Commission comments on the assessment of the FRAND objection in light of the CJEU\u2019s Huawei .\/. ZTE decison (case no. C-170\/13) and recommends a step-by-step examination of the procedural steps laid down by the CJEU in a fixed order:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The decision Huawei .\/. ZTE intends to create a balance of interests between SEP owner and implementer<\/li>\n<li>Therefore, the CJEU has developed procedural steps which must be generally observed;<\/li>\n<li>Once an action for injunctive relief has been filed, the notice of infringement and the declaration of willingness to take a license can not be made up;\u00a0<\/li>\n<li>The notice of infringement must precisely describe the infringed patent and the nature of the infringement; references to external sources are not sufficient;<\/li>\n<li>Subsequent negotiation tactics or delays are irrelevant for the declaration of willingness to take a license in the second step; with a simple declaration, the implementer generally fulfils its obligations; in particular, the implementer may reserve the right to take a license only for patents that are valid and truly essential;<\/li>\n<li>The implementer must submit a FRAND offer even if the SEP owner&#8217;s offer was not FRAND;<\/li>\n<li>The Huawei framework only applies to injunctions and not to other types of actions such as actions for damages or information;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n\t<section class=\"section text-box text-box--variant-1 \">\n\t\t\n\t\t<h2><strong>Unified Patent Court (UPC)<\/strong><\/h2>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/section>\n\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Local Division Munich, 18 December 2024, docket no. UPC_CFI 9\/2023<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/Lokalkammer-Muenchen-Entscheidung-vom-18.12.24-UPC_CFI_9_2023.pdf\">UPC_CFI_9\/2023<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/Local-Division-Munich-decision-dated-18.12.24-UPC_CFI_9_2023.pdf\">[EN] UPC_CFI_9\/2023<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tUPC on the assertion of an SEP by the patent proprietor &#8211; requirements for FRAND offers and defense of the implementer in accordance with the ECJ ruling Huawei .\/. ZTE\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<ul>\n<li>The SEP proprietor already satisfies its obligations under antitrust law if it informs the infringer of the specific patent infringement and offers it at least one FRAND-compliant licensing route; the infringement action aimed at injunctive relief, recall and destruction cannot be dismissed as inadmissible as long as an offer is FRAND.<\/li>\n<li>An offer via a generally accessible, SEP-based patent pool can be FRAND and thus be sufficient under antitrust law.<\/li>\n<li>The same standards also apply in the context of an assessment under contract law, for example in the case of existing letters of undertaking (LOAs) in accordance with IEEE regulations.<\/li>\n<li>Even if the filing of an action is contrary to antitrust law because the patent proprietor&#8217;s offer contradicts FRAND conditions, the infringer can only invoke this if he himself submits a FRAND counter-offer without delay, has provided appropriate security in the event of rejection and has provided complete information about its acts of use.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Local Division Mannheim, 27 May 2025, docket no. UPC_CFI 445\/2025<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2025-05-27-Anordnung-der-Lokalkammer-Mannheim-UPC_CFI_445_2025.pdf\">UPC_CFI_445\/2025<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2025-05-27-Order-from-Local-Division-Mannheim-UPC_CFI_445_2025.pdf\">[EN] UPC_CFI_445\/2025<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tUPC on the issuance of a preliminary measure against an impending anti-suit injunction\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<ul>\n<li>An imminent infringement is not only an unlawful use of the patent itself, but also the interference with the patent proprietor&#8217;s property right by requesting a prohibition order to assert the patent right. It establishes the jurisdiction of the court.<\/li>\n<li>The claim to take action against an ASI is inherent in the patent because, in addition to its material allocation function, the patent also has procedural enforceability as a central aspect of intellectual property rights (Art. 47 (I) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Art. 20 of the UPCA).<\/li>\n<li>The imminence of an application for ASI makes the measure appear urgent, so that the main proceedings cannot normally be awaited.<\/li>\n<li>The weighting of interests is in favor of the applicants, as the application is purely defensive and the defendants remain free to defend themselves. In addition, it should be ensured that no foreign courts grant a FRAND license for the EU economic area that violates the principles of EU law.<\/li>\n<li>However, an injunction is only issued against a security deposit.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Local Division Mannheim, 22 November 2024, docket no. UPC_CFI 210\/2023<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2024-12-12-Lokalkammer-Mannheim-Entscheidung-vom-22.11.2024-UPC_CFI_210_2023.pdf\">UPC_CFI_210\/2023<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2024-02-12-Local-Division-Mannheim-Decision-22.11.2024-UPC_CFI_210_2023.pdf\">[EN] UPC_CFI_210\/2023<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tUPC Decision\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<ul>\n<li>Sole consideration of the license rate in contradiction to EU law; whole conduct has to be taking into account<\/li>\n<li>No formalistic understanding of the infringement notice: infringed SEP must be designated and the manner of infringement; infringement notice does not have to be included in the cover letter itself; sufficient to send Claim Charts<\/li>\n<li>Declaration of willingness to license only a starting point for negotiations: no insisting on a particular wording; declaration must be serious, however<\/li>\n<li>The seriousness of the declaration of willingness to license must be judged from the further conduct of the patent user<\/li>\n<li>Adherence to the sequence of steps in the negotiation program: sequence must not be mixed up in such a way that the offer of the SEP holder is disregard; LD examines SEP holder\u2019s offer in any case<\/li>\n<li>Detailed examination of the SEP holder&#8217;s offer in consideration of comparable licences<\/li>\n<li>Assessment of offers on a case-by-case basis and on the basis of conduct: e.g. implementer cannot make a conducive offer without sufficient knowledge of licensing conditions and SEP holder cannot make a conducive offer without sales information<\/li>\n<li>\u201cOffer\u201d to be understood in economic terms: economic key aspects sufficient at the beginning<\/li>\n<li>Third party licensee has a legitimate interest in confidentiality, implementer cannot demand disclosure if it is still open whether they will seriously negotiate and if they do not disclose sales figures themselves.<\/li>\n<li>Implementer cannot request to be in every respect treated equally to a third party which was able to resolve any differences in a short time.<\/li>\n<li>Objections has to be raised in a close temporal context during negotiations;<\/li>\n<li>UPC has jurisdiction for FRAND counterclaim under Art. 32.1 lit. a UPCA<\/li>\n<li>FRAND counterclaim unfounded when Implementer offers a non-FRAND offer<\/li>\n<li>Counterclaim: rate setting by UPC possible based on a global licence<\/li>\n<li>SEP holder may, as an auxiliary request, request that its own offer be reviewed for FRAND compatibility, on the condition that the FRAND objection is upheld<\/li>\n<\/ul>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n\t<section class=\"section text-box text-box--variant-1 \">\n\t\t\n\t\t<h2><strong>Regional Court D\u00fcsseldorf<\/strong><\/h2>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/section>\n\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Regional Court D\u00fcsseldorf, 26 November 2020, docket no. 4c O 17\/19<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download: \u00a0 <strong><a class=\"button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2020-11-26-LG-Duesseldorf-4c-O-17_19_EN.pdf\">4c O 17\/19 <\/a><\/strong>\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2020-11-26-LG-Duesseldorf-4c-O-17_19_EN.pdf\">[EN] 4c O 17\/19<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tReferral order by which the Regional Court D\u00fcsseldorf refers several FRAND-related questions to the CJEU\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"89d7d9327f30ecc9a\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<div id=\"474b63b942c8cd924\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>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.<\/li>\n<li>In addition, the district court seeks clarification on,\n<ul>\n<li>whether the parties\u2019 respectively ommited obligations can be remedied in the on-going infringement proceedings, and<\/li>\n<li>what requirements are to be placed on the SEP user\u2019s request for a licence.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Regional Court D\u00fcsseldorf, 24 April 2019, docket no. 4c O 24\/19<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2019-04-24-4c-O-24_19-DE.pdf\">4c O 24\/19<\/a> \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0<a class=\"button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2019-04-24-4c-O-24_19-EN.pdf\">[EN] 4c O 24\/19<\/a><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tPreliminary injunction regarding the protection of trade secrets in German SEP infringement proceedings. PI prevents disclosure of confidential information in parallel proceedings\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"553c11324dd7ecfb9\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>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<\/li>\n<li>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 D\u00fcsseldorf, 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<\/li>\n<li>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<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Regional Court D\u00fcsseldorf, 09 November 2018, docket no. 4a O 15\/17 \u2013 Fraunhofer Gesellschaft (MPEG LA) .\/. ZTE<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2018-11-09-4a-O-15_17-DE-pdf.pdf\">4a O 15\/17<\/a> \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0<a class=\"button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2018-11-09-4a-O-15_17-EN-pdf.pdf\">[EN] 4a O 15\/17<\/a><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tPool patent holder are not required to license single patents\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"dea7867e979b329b2\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Sole availability on website does not constitute offer of a standard license agreement; only the delivery of the contract does constitute such an offer<\/li>\n<li>Offer of a pool license in general fair and reasonable as the license seeker saves the costs for licensing the property rights individually<\/li>\n<li>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<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Regional Court D\u00fcsseldorf, 09 November 2018, docket no. 4a O 17\/17 \u2013 Tagivan II .\/. Huawei<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2018-11-09-4a-O-17_17-DE-pdf.pdf\">4a O 17\/17<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2018-11-09-4a-O-17_17-EN-pdf.pdf\">[EN] 4a O 17\/17<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tThe standard license agreement is not unreasonable because it does not contain an adjustment clause. The variability of the SEP-portfolio can be compensated by other mechanisms\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"d4d5bf19601f8a940\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>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<\/li>\n<li>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<\/li>\n<li>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<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Regional Court D\u00fcsseldorf, 11 July 2018, docket no. 4c O 81\/17<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2018-07-11-4c-O-81_17-DE-pdf-2.pdf\">4c O 81\/17<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2018-07-11-4c-O-81_17-EN-pdf-2.pdf\">[EN] 4c O 81\/17<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tNo FRAND license offer by Plaintiff, therefore no enforcement although infringement was found\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"bc9e806360850c43d\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>First two steps fulfilled: Notice of infringement and declaration of willingness to conclude license agreement<\/li>\n<li>In accordance with procedural delay provisions patentee can rectify missed acts in FRAND negotiations<\/li>\n<li>Patentee discriminates Defendant by bringing actions against him and two main competitors while not bringing actions against other competitors (selective enforcement)<\/li>\n<li>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<\/li>\n<li>Issue of exhaustion not adequately addressed; license offers must in principle take into account a possible objection of exhaustion in order to be FRAND<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Regional Court D\u00fcsseldorf, 13 July 2017, docket no. 4a O 16\/16<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2017-07-13-4a-O-16_16-DE-pdf-2.pdf\">4a o 16\/16<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2017-07-13-4a-O-16_16-EN-pdf-1.pdf\">[EN] 4A o 16\/16<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tExtensive observations on different steps of FRAND negotiations.\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"c29fca21187350e5e\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Regarding possibility to rectify missed acts in negotiation; no necessity to decide in present procedure since offers of Plaintiff were too late anyway<\/li>\n<li>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<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Regional Court D\u00fcsseldorf, 31 March 2016, docket no. 4a O 73\/14 \u2013 Saint Lawrence .\/. Vodafone<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2016-03-31-4a-O-73_14-DE-pdf-2.pdf\">4a O 73\/14<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2016-03-31-4a-O-73_14-EN-pdf-1.pdf\">[EN] 4a O 73\/14<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tIn \u00dcbergangsf\u00e4llen steht die Verletzungsanzeige nach Einreichung der Klage (\u00dcbergangsfall = Klage zeitlich vor dem EuGH-Urteil Huawei\/ZTE eingereicht) der Geltendmachung eines Unterlassungsanspruchs nicht entgegen\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"89d7d9327f30ecc9a\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Parallelverfahren zu LG D\u00fcsseldorf, Az. 4a O 126\/14<\/li>\n<li>Unterscheidung zwischen \u00dcbergangs- und Nicht-\u00dcbergangsf\u00e4llen<\/li>\n<li>FRAND-Verpflichtungen k\u00f6nnen in \u00dcbergangsf\u00e4llen nachgeholt werden<\/li>\n<li>Verletzer muss Lizenzbereitschaft ausreichend schnell erkl\u00e4ren; je nach Einzelfall (entsprechend dem Detaillierungsgrad); hier 5 Monate deutlich zu lang<\/li>\n<li>Andere Lizenzvereinbarungen k\u00f6nnen zur Begr\u00fcndung der FRAND-Gem\u00e4\u00dfheit herangezogen werden, wenn sie eine etablierte Lizenzierungspraxis aufzeigen<\/li>\n<li>Portfolio-Lizenzierung m\u00f6glich<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n\t<section class=\"section text-box text-box--variant-1 \">\n\t\t\n\t\t<h2><strong>Higher Regional Court D\u00fcsseldorf<\/strong><\/h2>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/section>\n\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>HRC D\u00fcsseldorf, 03 November 2022, docket no. I-2 U 102\/22 \u2013 Geheimnisschutz<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2022-11-03-OLG-Duesseldorf-2-U-102_22-Geheimnisschutz.pdf\">I-2 U 102\/22<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2022-11-03-Higher-Regional-Court-Duesseldorf-2-U-102_22-Geheimnisschutz-EN-1.pdf\">[EN] I-2 U 102\/22<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tSecrecy in FRAND-Proceedings\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<ul>\n<li>Secrecy protection is at the discretion of the court<\/li>\n<li>Existence of a business secret is not sufficient for secrecy protection by a court<\/li>\n<li>Pre-trail NDA generally weighs against granting a secrecy protection order by a court if the fact is protected by NDA, if there is no possibility of an unilateral termination and if sanctions are to be applied if business secrets are used for litigation<\/li>\n<li>The scope of protection in the NDA is in principle also binding for secrecy protection by court<\/li>\n<li>The time limit of the NDA is irrelevant<\/li>\n<li>The court can only order secrecy measures despite an NDA if there are good reasons to do so<\/li>\n<\/ul>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>HRC D\u00fcsseldorf, 12 May 2022, docket no. I-2 U 13\/21 \u2013 Signalsynthese II<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2022-12-01-OLG-Duesseldorf-Urteil-vom-12.05.2022-2-U-13_21-Signalsynthese-II_DE.pdf\">I-2 U 13\/21<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2022-12-01-OLG-Duesseldorf-decision-dated-12.05.2022-2-U-13_21-Signalsynthese-II_EN-1.pdf\">[EN] I-2 U 13\/21<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tDifferentiation between general and concrete willingness to license in FRAND objection\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<ul>\n<li><strong>A distinction must be made between the infringer&#8217;s basic (general) willingness to take a FRAND license and its will to comply with specific license FRAND-conditions. <\/strong><\/li>\n<li><strong>At the stage of the licence request, only the Defendant\u2019s 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.<\/strong><\/li>\n<li>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.<\/li>\n<li>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.<\/li>\n<li>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.<\/li>\n<li><strong>If there is no general willingness to take a license, the patent proprietor&#8217;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.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>HRC D\u00fcsseldorf, 07 February 2022, docket no. I-2 U 27\/21<br \/><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2022-02-07-I-2-U-27_21-DE-pdf.pdf\">I-2 U 27\/21<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2022-02-07-I-2-U-27_21-EN-pdf.pdf\">[EN] I-2 U 27\/21<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tZur zeitliche Reichweite von AASI\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"89d7d9327f30ecc9a\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Der Erlass einer AASI muss f\u00fcr einen effektiven Rechtsschutz objektiv notwendig sein.<\/li>\n<li>Wurde noch kein Antrag auf Erlass einer Anti-Suit Injunction gestellt, fehlen konkrete Anhaltspunkte f\u00fcr ein dahingehendes Vorhaben oder ist zwischen den Parteien kein Hauptsachverfahren in einer ASI Jurisdiktion anh\u00e4ngig, liegen die Voraussetzungen f\u00fcr den Erlass nicht vor.<\/li>\n<li>Ein Patentbenutzer, der einen Antrag auf Erlass einer ASI gestellt hat, ist als offensichtlich lizenzunwillig anzusehen.<\/li>\n<li>\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>HRC D\u00fcsseldorf, 22 March 2019, docket no. I-2 U 31\/16 \u2013 Unwired Planet .\/. Huawei<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/OLG-Duesseldorf-Beschluss-vom-22.03.19-2-U-31_16.pdf\">I-2 U 31\/16<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/HRC-Duesseldorf-decision-dated-22-March-2019-ref.-2-U-31_16.pdf\">[EN] I-2 U 31\/16<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tDie \u00dcbertragung von standardessenziellen Patenten steht grunds\u00e4tzlich nicht im Widerspruch zur FRAND-Verpflichtung des SEP-Inhabers. Der K\u00e4ufer bleibt daher an die Lizenzpraxis des Vorg\u00e4ngers gebunden. Das Gericht stellt zudem Grunds\u00e4tze zur Bewertung eines SEP Portfolios auf.\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"89d7d9327f30ecc9a\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<div id=\"79cb0b7d0ce864469\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\u00a0<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"79cb0b7d0ce864469\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Der Erwerber ist an die Lizenzpraxis \u2013 auch in Bezug auf Menge und Inhalt \u2013 gebunden, solange Lizenzvertr\u00e4ge des ehemaligen Eigent\u00fcmers in Kraft sind und auch ohne ausdr\u00fcckliche \/ konkludente Erkl\u00e4rung<\/li>\n<li>Im Gegensatz zu Entscheidungen aus anderen EU-L\u00e4ndern, werden zur Bewertung des Patentportfolios nicht die Patente gez\u00e4hlt. Stattdessen betrachtet das Gericht den Wert der patentierten Technologie<\/li>\n<li>Dementsprechend verh\u00e4lt sich das Angebot des SEP-Inhabers nicht zwingend proportional zur Anzahl der verkauften Patente<\/li>\n<li>F\u00fcr die Bestimmung ob ein Angebot \u201enichtdiskriminierend\u201c ist, sind ausschlie\u00dflich wirksame Lizenzvertr\u00e4ge heranzuziehen<\/li>\n<li>Man muss unterscheiden zwischen Lizenzvereinbarungen, die Kreuzlizenzen enthalten und Lizenzvereinbarungen, die keinen Gegenwert enthalten \u2013 Vergleichbarkeit nur innerhalb der einzelnen Gruppen<\/li>\n<li>Ein Patent\u00fcbertragungsvertrag f\u00e4llt nicht unter Art. 101 AEUV, es sei denn, er enth\u00e4lt wettbewerbsbeschr\u00e4nkende Nebenabreden, da er auf den Austausch von Dienstleistungen abzielt<\/li>\n<li>Beide Parteien haben beim BGH Berufung eingelegt, was m\u00f6glicherweise zur ersten Entscheidung des BGH zu FRAND seit der Huawei . \/. ZTE Entscheidung des EuGH im Jahr 2015 f\u00fchren wird<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>HRC D\u00fcsseldorf, 25 April 2018, docket no. I-2 W 8\/18<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2018-04-25-I-2-W-8-18-DE-pdf-2.pdf\">I-2 W 8\/18<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2018-04-25-I-2-W-8_18-EN-pdf-1.pdf\">[EN] i-2 W 8\/18<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tFortf\u00fchrung der Rechtsprechung zu Vertraulichkeitsvereinbarungen in Rechtsstreitigkeiten mit SEP. Zus\u00e4tzliche Hinweise und Weiterentwicklung des Ansatzes von OLG D\u00fcsseldorf, 17.01.2016, Az. I-2 U 31\/16.\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"89d7d9327f30ecc9a\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<div id=\"79cb0b7d0ce864469\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<div id=\"29940cfe5d1e3333f\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Jede Partei des Verfahrens, einschlie\u00dflich der Streithelferin, muss grunds\u00e4tzlich Zugang zu den Gerichtsakten haben \u2013 daher muss die Partei vor dem Verfahren Vorkehrungen zur Wahrung der Vertraulichkeit treffen<\/li>\n<li>Wer ohne Sicherungsvorkehrungen vortr\u00e4gt, nimmt in Kauf, dass seine Geheimnisse dem Gegner ungesch\u00fctzt im Wege der Akteneinsicht bekannt werden<\/li>\n<li>Dies gilt auch f\u00fcr die Streithelferin<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>HRC D\u00fcsseldorf, 18 July 2017, docket no. I-2 U 23\/17<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2017-07-18-I-2-U-23_17-DE-pdf-1.pdf\">I-2 U 23\/17<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2017-07-18-I-2-U-23_17-EN-pdf-1.pdf\">[EN] I-2 U 23\/17<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tEinstweilige Verf\u00fcgungen, die SEP betreffen, unterliegen den gleichen strengen Anforderungen wie Verf\u00fcgungen, die auf Nicht-SEP beruhen. Der SEP-Inhaber muss die vom EuGH in Huawei\/ZTE festgelegten Voraussetzungen erf\u00fcllen, bevor er eine einstweilige Verf\u00fcgung beantragt.\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"89d7d9327f30ecc9a\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<div id=\"79cb0b7d0ce864469\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<div id=\"29940cfe5d1e3333f\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<div id=\"56f6ea85a20af18d2\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Der Bestand des Verf\u00fcgungspatents und die Patentverletzung m\u00fcssen eindeutig zugunsten des Antragsstellers zu beantworten sein<\/li>\n<li>Der Rechtsbestand des SEP erf\u00fcllt diese Voraussetzungen nicht<\/li>\n<li>Au\u00dferdem ist die Dringlichkeit nicht gegeben<\/li>\n<li>Ausf\u00fchrungen zu Konsequenzen, wenn Verletzer sich weigert ein NDA zu unterzeichnen<\/li>\n<li>Eine ungerechtfertigte Ablehnung des NDA kann zu einer Erleichterung im Rahmen der Darlegungs- und Beweislast des SEP-Inhabers f\u00fchren<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>HRC D\u00fcsseldorf, 29 June 2017, docket no. I-15 U 41\/17 \u2013 Sisvel .\/. Haier<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2017-06-29-I-15-U-41_17-DE-pdf-1.pdf\">I-15 U 41\/17<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2017-06-29-I-15-U-41_17-EN-pdf-1.pdf\">[EN] I-15 U 41\/17<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tAblehnender Beschluss im einstweiligen Verf\u00fcgungsverfahren. Hauptverfahren: LG D\u00fcsseldorf, Az. 4a O 144\/14 mit Berufungsverfahren Az. I-15 U 65\/15 (parallel zu Az. I-15 U 66\/15).\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"d6a20eb16e6ab8bdc\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Keine Dringlichkeit<\/li>\n<li>Die Dringlichkeitsbedingung beinhaltet, dass der Patentinhaber das FRAND-Verfahren so weit wie m\u00f6glich aus eigener Kraft vorantreiben muss<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>HRC D\u00fcsseldorf, 30 March 2017, docket no. I-15 U 66\/15 \u2013 Sisvel .\/. Haier<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2017-03-30-I-15-U-66_15-DE-pdf-2.pdf\">I-15 U 66\/15<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2017-03-30-I-15-U-66_15-EN-pdf.pdf\">[EN] I-15 U 66\/15<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tPatentverletzer hat nur dann in FRAND-konformer Weise zu reagieren, wenn SEP-Inhaber vorher seinerseits FRAND-konform gehandelt hat.\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"f27d40ec7ad14f853\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Das vom EuGH in Huawei\/ZTE festgelegte Verfahren gilt auch f\u00fcr \u00dcbergangsf\u00e4lle<\/li>\n<li>FRAND-Pflichten sind konsekutiv zu erf\u00fcllen; Patentverletzer hat Lizenzbereitschaft nur nach Verletzungshinweis anzuzeigen und ebenso FRAND-Gegenangebot nur nach FRAND-Angebot abzugeben<\/li>\n<li>Auch bei SEP besteht grunds\u00e4tzlich weiter Spielraum f\u00fcr sachliche Rechtfertigung der Differenzierung<\/li>\n<li>Formelle Anforderungen an FRAND-Angebot und Auswirkung des FRAND-Einwands auf Schadensersatz- sowie auf Auskunfts- und Verwertungsanspr\u00fcche<\/li>\n<li>Revision zugelassen und anh\u00e4ngig beim Bundesgerichtshof (Az. KZR 36\/17, noch nicht ver\u00f6ffentlicht)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>HRC D\u00fcsseldorf, 09 May 2016, docket no. I-15 U 35\/16 \u2013 Saint Lawrence .\/. Vodafone<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2016-05-09-I-15-U-35_16-DE-pdf-1.pdf\">I-15 U 35\/16<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2016-05-09-I-15-U-35_16-EN-pdf-1.pdf\">[EN] I-15 U 35\/16<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tBeschluss zur Einstellung der Zwangsvollstreckung: Im Allgemeinen d\u00fcrfte eine Differenzierung nach \u00dcbergangs- und Neuf\u00e4llen unzul\u00e4ssig sein. Es besteht jedoch die M\u00f6glichkeit, im laufenden Unterlassungsverfahren fr\u00fchere Verst\u00f6\u00dfe gegen die FRAND-Verpflichtungen nachtr\u00e4glich zu beheben.\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"9aef79904e9e0a030\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Berufungsverfahren zur Entscheidung Az. 4a O 126\/14 vor dem LG D\u00fcsseldorf und paralleles Verfahren zu Az. I-15 U 36\/16 (Berufungsverfahren zu Az. 4a O 73\/14).<\/li>\n<li>5 Monate Reaktionszeit des Beklagten nicht mehr rechtzeitig<\/li>\n<li>Die Entscheidung des EuGH ist mit Wirkung ex tunc zu beachten und SEP-Inhabern steht kein Vertrauensschutz hinsichtlich der Entscheidung des BGH (Orange-Book-Standard) zu<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>HRC D\u00fcsseldorf, 17 January 2016, docket no. I-2 U 31\/16 \u2013 Unwired Planet .\/. Huawei<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2019-03-22-I-2-U-31_16-DE-pdf-2.pdf\">I-2 U 31\/16<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2019-03-22-I-2-U-31_16-EN-pdf-2.pdf\">[EN] I-2 U 31\/16<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tHinweisbeschluss: Der Beklagte kann entweder auf den verfassungsrechtlich verb\u00fcrgten Anspruch auf (eigene) Teilhabe am Prozessgeschehen verzichten oder mit dem Kl\u00e4ger ein NDA abschlie\u00dfen.\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"9aef79904e9e0a030\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Vorschlag f\u00fcr ein angemessenes NDA mit dem Beklagten<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n\t<section class=\"section text-box text-box--variant-1 \">\n\t\t\n\t\t<h2><strong>Regional Court Mannheim<\/strong><\/h2>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/section>\n\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Regional Court Mannheim, 05 July 2022, docket no. 2 O 75\/21 &#8211; Mobilfunkstandard<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2022-07-05-LG-Mannheim-2-O-75_21-LTE-Mobilfunkstandard.pdf\">2 O 75\/21<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2022-07-05-Regional-Court-Mannheim-2-O-75_21-LTE-Mobilfunkstandard-EN.pdf\">[EN] 2 O 75\/21<\/a><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tInfringer\u2019s obligation to cooperate in FRAND-negotiations\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"9aef79904e9e0a030\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>The infringer must cooperate even if the license offer is obviously not FRAND by informing the patentee of all the reasons for its assessment<\/li>\n<li>In the case of offers that are obviously not FRAND, there is no obligation on an in-depth examination<\/li>\n<li>The infringer must, however, communicate obvious objections, for example regarding the basic structure of the license calculation<\/li>\n<li>An exception to the duty to cooperate only exists if the offer appears objectively not to be serious; this must be determined in an overall assessment; the FRAND-inconsistency of a provision is not sufficient<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Regional Court Mannheim, 14 April 2023, docket no. 7 O 91\/22\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2023-08-01-Landgericht-Mannheim-Beschluss-vom-14.04.2023-Az.-7-O-91_22.pdf\">7 O 91\/22<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2023-08-01-Regional-Court-Mannheim_-Decision-14.04.2023_-Az.-7-O-91_22.pdf\">[EN] 7 O 91\/22<\/a><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tConfidentiality in FRAND proceedings\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"9aef79904e9e0a030\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>There is no legal need for a court order to protect confidential information if the parteis have concluded an NDA with a contractual penalty;<\/li>\n<li>An agreement to not disclose information in court proceedings without a court ordered confidentiality regime does not justify a different assessment;<\/li>\n<li>If a party is prevented from presenting its own facts by a contract, the general rules of civil procedure apply;<\/li>\n<li>The mere interest of the owner of a secret in protection against disclosure by third parties such as judges and court clerks does not constitute a need for legal protection;<\/li>\n<li>Obiter dictum: It is not obvious which legal interest the licensor has in keeping his licensing conditions secret in court proceedings.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Regional Court Mannheim, 2 March 2021, docket no. 2 O 131\/19 \u2013 LG .\/. TCL<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2021-03-02-LG-Mannheim-2-O-131-19-DE.pdf\">2 o 131\/19<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2021-03-02-LG-Mannheim-2-O-131-19-EN.pdf\">[EN] 2 o 131\/19<\/a><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tZum Gegenangebot des Patentverletzers\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"9aef79904e9e0a030\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>In FRAND-Verhandlungen ist ein Gegenangebot, in dem der Verletzer eine zwischen den Parteien diskutierte Frage in der Schwebe l\u00e4sst, in der Regel unangemessen, wenn diese Streitfrage erhebliche Auswirkungen auf die H\u00f6he der Lizenzgeb\u00fchr hat, da die Leistungspflicht des Verletzers nicht hinreichend konkret bezifferbar ist.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Regional Court Mannheim, 21 August 2020, docket no. 2 O 136\/18 \u2013 IP Bridge .\/. TCT Mobile\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2020-08-21-LG-Mannheim-2-O-136_18-DE.pdf\">2 o 136\/18<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2020-08-21-LG-Mannheim-2-O-136_18-EN.pdf\">[EN] 2 O 136\/18<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tPr\u00fcfungsreihenfolge beim FRAND-Einwand\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"9aef79904e9e0a030\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Hat der Inhaber eines standardessentiellen Patents (SEP) dem Benutzer ein Lizenzangebot unterbreitet und dieses ausreichend erl\u00e4utert und nimmt der Benutzer dieses Lizenzangebot nicht an, so muss dessen Gegenangebot FRAND-Kriterien entsprechen, ohne dass es f\u00fcr diese Obliegenheit des Benutzers darauf ankommt, ob das vorausgehende Lizenzangebot des SEP-Inhabers tats\u00e4chlich FRAND-Kriterien entsprach.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Regional Court Mannheim, 18 August 2020, docket no. 2 O 34\/19 \u2013 Nokia .\/. Daimler<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2020-08-18-LG-Mannheim-2-O-34_19-DE.pdf\">2 o 34\/19<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2020-08-18-LG-Mannheim-2-O-34_19-EN.pdf\">[EN] 2 o 34\/19<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tZur Lizenzwilligkeit eines Endger\u00e4teherstellers, der den SEP-Inhaber auf seine Zulieferer als taugliche Lizenznehmer verweist\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"9aef79904e9e0a030\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<div id=\"3331335ddc470e5c5\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Der Benutzer eines standardessenziellen Patents ist in der Regel nicht lizenzwillig, wenn er den SEP-Inhaber wegen des Abschlusses eines Lizenzvertrags auf seine Zulieferer verweist.<\/li>\n<li>Der SEP-Inhaber kann grunds\u00e4tzlich ausw\u00e4hlen, auf welcher Vertriebsstufe er sein Schutzrecht durchsetzen will.<\/li>\n<li>Unabh\u00e4ngig von der ausgew\u00e4hlten Vertriebsstufe ist die angemessene Beteiligung des SEP-Inhabers und damit letztendlich die H\u00f6he der Lizenz stets am verkaufsf\u00e4higen Endprodukt auszurichten.<\/li>\n<li>Ein Gegenangebot des Benutzers, welches hinter den FRAND-Anforderungen zur\u00fcckbleibt, spricht in der Regel gegen seine Lizenzwilligkeit.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Regional Court Mannheim, 4 September 2019, docket no. 7 O 115\/16<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/DE-LG-Mannheim-7-O-115-16.pdf\">7 o 115\/16<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/EN-Regional-Court-Mannheim-7-O-115-16.pdf\">[EN] 7 o 115\/16<\/a><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tUrteil, welches Geheimhaltungsklauseln in SEP Lizenzvertr\u00e4gen als grunds\u00e4tzlich zul\u00e4ssig erachtet. Die Kriterien hierf\u00fcr werden aufgez\u00e4hlt. Zudem wird sich zu der Darlegungs- und Beweislast hinsichtlich der FRAND-Konformit\u00e4t bei \u00f6ffentlich zug\u00e4nglichen Lizenzvertr\u00e4gen ge\u00e4u\u00dfert.\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"1e50811375dcb4088\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Vertraulichkeitsvereinbarung in SEP-Lizenzvertr\u00e4gen sind zul\u00e4ssig. F\u00fcr Offenlegungsobliegenheiten m\u00fcssen die Interessen und das Verhalten der Parteien im konkreten gegeneinander abgewogen werden<\/li>\n<li>Obliegenheiten k\u00f6nnen w\u00e4hrend dem Verfahren nachgeholt werden. Dies erfordert allerdings eine druckfreie Situation (Aussetzung, Ruhen des Verfahrens, Aufhebung des Verhandlungstermins). Insbesondere die Offenlegung von Lizenzvertr\u00e4gen kann nachgeholt werden, indem der Lizenzinhaber vorschl\u00e4gt, einen entsprechenden Gerichtsbeschluss zu erlassen<\/li>\n<li>Das LG Mannheim bewertet FRAND mithilfe eines \u201eVerhaltenstests\u201c, um festzustellen, ob die Parteien ihren jeweiligen Obliegenheiten nachgekommen sind<\/li>\n<li>Bei der Beurteilung des gesamten Vertragswerks ist es wichtig, alle Umst\u00e4nde einzubeziehen, so dass eine Verletzung von kartellrechtlichen Verpflichtungen in der Regel nicht allein durch Einw\u00e4nde gegen einzelne Klauseln nachgewiesen werden kann<\/li>\n<li>Nur wenn der Lizenznehmer die M\u00f6glichkeit einer Diskriminierung substantiiert, kann der SEP-Inhaber verpflichtet sein, sein Angebot durch die Offenlegung von Lizenzvertr\u00e4gen nachvollziehbar zu machen<\/li>\n<li>Bei der Durchsetzung von Lizenzprogrammen mit einer \u00f6ffentlichen Poolstruktur (wie MPEG oder Sisvel Wireless) wird die Beweislast f\u00fcr das FRAND-Angebot reduziert, da alle Lizenznehmer den gleichen Lizenzsatz bezahlen<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Regional Court Mannheim, 28 September 2018, docket no. 7 O 165\/16 \u2013 IP Bridge .\/. HTC<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2018-09-28-LG-Mannheim-Az.-7-O-165-16-DE_IP-Bridge-HTC.pdf\">7 O 165\/16<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2018-09-28-7-O-165_16-EN-pdf-1-2.pdf\">[EN] 7 o 165\/16<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tIm Gegensatz zum OLG D\u00fcsseldorf: Der SEP-Inhaber kann vers\u00e4umte Handlungen in FRAND-Verhandlungen nur nachholen, wenn er das Ruhen des Verfahrens beantragt und so ohne Druck zu den Verhandlungen zur\u00fcckkehrt.\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"ff345e5d478c893c3\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Die Durchsetzbarkeit des Auskunfts-\/ Rechnungslegungs- sowie des Schadensersatzanspruchs bleibt von einer FRAND-Verpflichtungserkl\u00e4rung des SEP-Inhabers unber\u00fchrt<\/li>\n<li>Auch im Falle einer Beschr\u00e4nkung des Schadensersatzanspruchs (auf FRAND-Lizenzgeb\u00fchr; in diesem Fall nicht ma\u00dfgeblich) kann der Gesch\u00e4digte grunds\u00e4tzlich die geforderten Daten im Rahmen der Rechnungslegung verlangen<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Regional Court Mannheim, 02 March 2018, docket no. 7 O 18\/17<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2018-03-02-7-O-18-17-DE-KBR-Richtig.pdf\">7 o 18\/17<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2018-03-02-7-O-18_17-EN-pdf.pdf\">[EN] 7 o 18\/17<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tEin SEP-Inhaber muss Lizenzvertr\u00e4ge regelm\u00e4\u00dfig auch ohne den Schutz einer Geheimhaltungsvereinbarung vorlegen, da vertragliche Klauseln zur Geheimhaltung in SEP-Lizenzvertr\u00e4gen selbst kartellrechtswidrig und damit nichtig sind.\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"ff345e5d478c893c3\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Der Kl\u00e4ger muss den Beklagten die Fakten transparent machen, auf deren Grundlage er der Ansicht ist, dass der geforderte Lizenzpreis im Lizenzvertragsangebot FRAND ist<\/li>\n<li>Unterschiedliche Marktgr\u00f6\u00dfe des Lizenznehmers ist kein sachlicher Grund zur Ungleichbehandlung<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Regional Court Mannheim, 10 November 2017, docket no. 7 O 28\/16<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2017-11-10-7-O-28_16-DE-pdf-1.pdf\">7 o 28\/16<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2017-11-10-7-O-28_16-EN-pdf-1.pdf\">[EN] 7 o 28\/16<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tVers\u00e4umte Ma\u00dfnahmen in FRAND-Verhandlungen k\u00f6nnen nachgeholt werden, der SEP-Inhaber muss allerdings das Ruhen des Verfahrens beantragen, um ohne Druck zu den Verhandlungen zur\u00fcckzukehren.\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"ff345e5d478c893c3\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Die Durchsetzbarkeit der Anspr\u00fcche auf Auskunft\/ Rechnungslegung sowie Schadensersatz dem Grunde nach bleibt auch bei einem erfolgreichen kartellrechtlichen Zwangslizenzeinwand unber\u00fchrt<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Regional Court Mannheim, 17 November 2016, docket no. 7 O 19\/16 \u2013 Philips .\/. Archos<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2016-11-17-7-O-19_16-DE-pdf-3.pdf\">7 o 19\/16<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2016-11-17-7-O-19_16-EN-pdf-3.pdf\">[EN] 7 o 19\/16<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tDer Kl\u00e4ger vers\u00e4umte es, die Art und Weise der Lizenzberechnung hinreichend zu erl\u00e4utern und behauptete lediglich einen bestimmten Lizenzsatz. Die reine Angabe von Multiplikatoren f\u00fcr die Berechnung reicht nicht aus, um ein FRAND-Angebot abzugeben.\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"48e6af09601b2a62d\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Warum die Berechnung des Lizenzsatzes als FRAND angesehen wird, muss ebenfalls im Vorfeld des Verfahrens erl\u00e4utert werden<\/li>\n<li>Wenn Kl\u00e4ger die zuvor vers\u00e4umten FRAND-Obliegenheiten im Laufe des Verfahrens ohne Sanktionierung nachholen k\u00f6nnte, w\u00fcrde dem Grundgedanke der EuGH-Entscheidung Huawei\/ZTE nicht mehr entsprochen<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Regional Court Mannheim, 27 November 2015, docket no. 2 O 106\/14 \u2013 Saint Lawrence .\/. Deutsche Telekom<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2015-11-27-2-O-106_-14-DE-pdf.pdf\">2 O 106\/14<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2015-11-27-2-O-106_14-EN-pdf-1.pdf\">[EN] 2 O 106\/14<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tErkl\u00e4rt der vermeintliche Verletzer nur z\u00f6gerlich seine Lizenzbereitschaft, sollte die Frage, ob der SEP-Inhaber die Verletzung vor Klageerhebung angezeigt hat oder nicht, nicht entscheidend sein\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"f63666ba226dc68bf\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Ein Lizenzangebot l\u00f6st auch dann die Obliegenheit aus, ein Gegenangebot zu unterbreiten, wenn das Lizenzangebot selbst nicht FRAND ist<\/li>\n<li>Wenn der vermeintliche Verletzer nach Ablehnung seines Gegenangebots keine Sicherheit leistet, ist es nicht mehr relevant, ob sein Gegenangebot FRAND war oder nicht<\/li>\n<li>Patent Ambush<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n\t<section class=\"section text-box text-box--variant-1 \">\n\t\t\n\t\t<h2><strong>Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe<\/strong><\/h2>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/section>\n\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>HRC Karlsruhe, 04 October 2023, docket no. 6 U 122\/22\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2023-10-24-OLG-Karlsruhe-Beschluss-vom-04.10.2023-6-U-122_22.pdf\">6 U 122\/22<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2023-10-24-Higher-Regional-Court-Karlsruhe_-Order-of-4-October-2023_-6-U-122_22.pdf\">[EN] 6 U 122\/22<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tEffects of an NDA with respect to an order for the protection of trade secrets\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"efa6e73ed839ed451\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>An NDA concluded by the parties does not preclude a party from additionally filing a motion pursuant to Sec. 145a Patent Act in conjunction with Sec. 16 para. (1) Act on Trade Secrets to classify information introduced into the proceedings as confidential. This is because such an order not only protect against disclosure by the other party like the NDA, but also by other third parties involved in the proceedings and leads to a restriction of the file inspection.<\/li>\n<li>Chamber leaves open the question of whether the content of an NDA can speak against a motion to further restrict access to the information according to Sec. 19 (1) Act on Trade Secrets.\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>HRC Karlsruhe, 14 September 2022, docket no. 6 U 212\/22\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/Oberlandesgericht-Karlsruhe-6-U-212_22.pdf\">6 U 212\/22<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/Higher-Regional-Court-Karlsruhe-6-U-212_22.pdf\">[EN] 6 U 212\/22<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tOffer contrary to FRAND does not entirely relieve license seekers of their obligations to react\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"efa6e73ed839ed451\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>On due summary examination, the decision of RC dismissing FRAND objection as license seeker was not willing to license is not clearly erroneous<\/li>\n<li>An offer by the SEP holder that is not FRAND does not entirely release the license seeker from its obligation to respond and contribute, unless the offer is not FRAND to such an extent that it appears not to be seriously meant<\/li>\n<li>The decision of the RC is not evidently incorrect because the RC did not take into account the significance of a possible cross-license when assessing the willingness to license, since the question has not yet been clarified by either the higher or supreme courts and the decision on this legal question is reserved for the appeal decision<\/li>\n<li>When weighing the interests pursuant to Sec. 707, 719 Code of Civil Procedure, it may have to be taken into account if the patentee is a patent exploitation company, but it may be of considerable importance for market participants who have already taken a license that patentees prevent another company from participating in the market<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>HRC Karlsruhe, 02 February 2022, docket no. 6 U 149\/20 \u2013 Steuerkanalsignalisierung II<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2022-12-1-OLG-Karlsruhe-Urteil-vom-02.02.2022-6-U-149_20-Steuerkanalsignalisierung-II.pdf\">6 U 149\/20<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2022-12-1-Higher-Regional-Court-Karlsruhe-decision-dated-02.02.2022-6-U-149_20-Steuerkanalsignalisierung-II.pdf\">[EN] 6 U 149\/20<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\t Continuous willingness to take a licence is an essential prerequisite of the FRAND objection\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"efa6e73ed839ed451\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>For the assessment of the question whether conduct of the licence seeker expresses a willingness to take a licence or serves to delay the conclusion of a licence agreement on FRAND terms, the Senate continues its case law \u201cDatenpaketverarbeitung\u201d and \u201cMobilstation\u201d, taking into account the subsequently published judgement of the FCJ \u201dFRAND-Einwand II\u201d;<\/li>\n<li>The continued willingness to take a licence is an indispensable prerequisite for a successful licence negotiation and thus also for the allegation of an abuse of market power against the patent proprietor in the event of its failure;<\/li>\n<li>The licensee must be clearly and unequivocally willing to enter into a licence agreement on FRAND terms, whatever FRAND terms may actually be, and must purposefully participate in the licence negotiations;<\/li>\n<li>The expression of a willingness to take a licence or a willingness to negotiate does not say anything about whether this declaration is meant seriously. Rather, it can also be the result of a delaying tactic on the part of the patent user;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>HRC Karlsruhe, 12 February 2021, Az. 6 U 130\/20 \u2013 Nokia .\/. Daimler<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2021-02-12_OLG-Karlsruhe_6-U-130_20-DE.pdf\">6 U 130\/20<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2021-02-12_HRC-Karlsruhe_6-U-130_20-EN.pdf\">[EN] 6 U 130\/20<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tEinstweilige Einstellung der Zwangsvollstreckung in FRAND-F\u00e4llen\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"efa6e73ed839ed451\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Regelm\u00e4\u00dfig bringt der Verletzer mit einem Vertragsangebot, das die Bestimmung der Lizenzgeb\u00fchr dem SEP-Inhaber nach billigem Ermessen gem. \u00a7 315 Abs. 3 BGB \u00fcberl\u00e4sst, hinreichend zum Ausdruck, dass er bereit ist, eine Lizenzvereinbarung abzuschlie\u00dfen, die jedenfalls hinsichtlich der H\u00f6he der Lizenzgeb\u00fchren FRAND-Bedingungen entspricht, wie auch immer eine solche Lizenzgeb\u00fchr aussehen mag.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>HRC Karlsruhe, 9 December 2020, docket no. 6 U 103\/19 \u2013 Sisvel .\/. Wiko<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2020-09-12_OLG_Karlsruhe_6-U-103_19-DE.pdf\">6 U 103\/19<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2020-09-12_OLG-Karlsruhe_6-U-103_19-EN.pdf\">[EN] 6 U 103\/19<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tZu den Verhandlungspflichten des Patentbenutzers, insbesondere zur Abgabe eines Gegenangebots.\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"07099ca1f104807b6\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Der Inhaber eines standardessentiellen Patents gen\u00fcgt seinen Obliegenheiten in der Regel, wenn er ein Angebot unterbreitet, das f\u00fcr den durchschnittlichen Lizenznehmer FRAND-Bedingungen entspricht und das Angebot in einer Art und Weise erl\u00e4utert, die den konkreten Lizenzsucher dazu in die Lage versetzt, nachzuvollziehen, auf welchen Erw\u00e4gungen die H\u00f6he der Lizenzgeb\u00fchr und die weiteren Bedingungen beruhen und weshalb der SEP-Inhaber die Lizenzgeb\u00fchr und die weiteren Bedingungen als nicht ausbeuterisch und nicht diskriminierend erachtet.<\/li>\n<li>Die Obliegenheit des Patentbenutzers, ein Gegenangebot zu unterbreiten, besteht jedenfalls schon dann, wenn das Lizenzangebot des SEP-Inhabers nicht klar und eindeutig FRAND-widrig ist und der SEP-Inhaber den Verletzer durch die Erl\u00e4uterung seines Angebots und der von ihm behaupteten FRAND-Gem\u00e4\u00dfheit der Bedingungen in die Lage versetzt hat, seinerseits ein Gegenangebot zu FRAND-Bedingungen zu unterbreiten.<\/li>\n<li>Den Patentbenutzer trifft auch unterhalb der Schwelle, ggf. zur Abgabe eines Gegenangebots gehalten zu sein, grds. die Obliegenheit, an Lizenzvertragsverhandlungen zielgerichtet mitzuwirken. Verletzt er diese Obliegenheit, kann er den Anspr\u00fcchen des SEP-Inhabers einen FRAND-Einwand grds. nicht mit Erfolg entgegenhalten.<\/li>\n<li>Diese Obliegenheit des Verletzers schlie\u00dft regelm\u00e4\u00dfig ein, vom SEP-Inhaber angebotene Informationsm\u00f6glichkeiten wahrzunehmen und ihm etwaige Beanstandungen im Rahmen der Verhandlungen mitzuteilen. Mit ihr unvereinbar ist eine Verhaltensweise, die danach trachtet, Beanstandungen als Mittel f\u00fcr die sp\u00e4tere Rechtsverteidigung in einem Rechtsstreit zur\u00fcckzuhalten.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>HRC Karlsruhe, 30 October 2019, docket no. 6 U 183\/16 \u2013 Philips .\/. Wiko<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/6-U-183-16-DE.pdf\">6 U 183\/16<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/6-U-183-16-EN.pdf\">[EN] 6 U 183\/16<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tZu den Verhandlungspflichten des SEP-Inhabers gegen\u00fcber dem Patentbenutzer.\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"43e92194ffd86efa3\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Es gen\u00fcgt, den Verletzungshinweis an die f\u00fcr Lizenzverhandlungen zust\u00e4ndige Konzernmuttergesellschaft zu richten. Der SEP-Inhaber muss sich nicht an einzelne Tochtergesellschaften wenden.<\/li>\n<li>Der Verletzungshinweis muss den Patentbenutzer in die Lage versetzen, die Qualit\u00e4t des Verletzungsvorwurfs und das Bed\u00fcrfnis an einer Lizenz zu ermitteln. Der Patentbenutzer hat den Verletzungshinweis regelm\u00e4\u00dfig innerhalb von zwei Monaten zu pr\u00fcfen.<\/li>\n<li>Verhandlungspflichten des SEP-Inhabers und Obliegenheiten des Patentbenutzers k\u00f6nnen w\u00e4hrend des Verletzungsprozesses nachgeholt werden.<\/li>\n<li>Der SEP-Inhaber hat den Inhalt der wesentlichen Vertragsbedingungen solcher Lizenzvertr\u00e4ge mit Dritten zu erl\u00e4utern, die unterschiedliche Bedingungen als sein FRAND-Angebot enthalten. Ein materiell-rechtlicher Anspruch des Patentbenutzers auf Vorlage der Vertr\u00e4ge besteht nicht.<\/li>\n<li>Der Rechnungslegungsanspruch des SEP-Inhabers wird durch die Verletzung von Verhandlungspflichten nicht beschr\u00e4nkt.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>HRC Karlsruhe, 08 September 2016 \u2013 docket no. 6 U 58\/16 \u2013 Sony .\/. Acer<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2016-09-08-6-U-58_16-DE-pdf-2.pdf\">6 U 58\/16<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2016-09-08-6-U-58_16-EN-pdf-1.pdf\">[EN] 6 U 58\/16<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tDas Gericht kann sich nicht auf eine negative Evidenzkontrolle beschr\u00e4nken, sondern muss pr\u00fcfen, ob das Angebot des SEP-Inhabers den FRAND-Bedingungen entspricht oder nicht.\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"43e92194ffd86efa3\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<div id=\"cc2891888660763a3\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Der SEP-Inhaber hat einen gro\u00dfen Entscheidungsspielraum bei der Bestimmung der FRAND-Bedingungen<\/li>\n<li>Dass es sich bei den zu erteilenden Informationen um Gesch\u00e4ftsinterna handelt, die mit R\u00fccksicht auf die Wettbewerbslage der Parteien vor der Kl\u00e4gerin geheim zu halten seien, rechtfertigt f\u00fcr sich genommen nicht die vorl\u00e4ufige Aussetzung der Vollstreckung<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>HRC Karlsruhe, 29 August 2016, docket no. 6 U 57\/16 \u2013 Philips .\/. Acer<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2016-08-29-6-U-57_16-DE-pdf-1.pdf\">6 U 57\/16<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2016-08-29-6-U-57_16-EN-pdf-1.pdf\">[EN] 6 U 57\/16<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tBeschluss, der die einstweilige Einstellung der Zwangsvollstreckung bez\u00fcglich Schadensersatz- und Auskunftsanspruch ablehnt.\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"e62a1e97d9f756dd5\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Keine Beschr\u00e4nkung auf diejenigen Angaben, die zur Berechnung des Schadensersatzes in Lizenzanalogie erforderlich sind (abweichend von D\u00fcsseldorf)<\/li>\n<li>Eine Aussetzung kann nur in Betracht gezogen werden, wenn die Erfolgsaussichten der neuen Nichtigkeitsklage offensichtlich sind<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>HRC Karlsruhe, 31 May 2016, docket no. 6 U 55\/16 \u2013 Pioneer .\/. Acer<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2016-05-31-6-U-55_16-DE-pdf-1.pdf\">6 U 55\/16<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2016-05-31-6-U-55_16-EN-pdf-1.pdf\">[EN] 6 U 55\/16<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tDie Frage, ob die Erhebung der Klage missbr\u00e4uchlich war, ist von der Frage zu trennen, ob die Fortsetzung des Rechtsstreits missbr\u00e4uchlich bleibt. Berufungsverfahren zur Entscheidung des Landgericht Mannheim Az. 7 O 96\/14.\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"947e018ea3681f992\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Das Gericht kann sich nicht auf eine Evidenzkontrolle beschr\u00e4nken, sondern muss pr\u00fcfen, ob das Angebot des SEP-Inhabers den FRAND-Bedingungen entspricht oder nicht.<\/li>\n<li>Bewilligung der vorl\u00e4ufigen Einstellung der Zwangsvollstreckung<\/li>\n<li>Die Entscheidung des EuGH wirkt ex tunc und SEP-Inhabern steht kein Vertrauensschutz hinsichtlich der Entscheidung des BGH (Orange-Book-Standard) zu<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>HRC Karlsruhe, 23 April 2015, docket no. 6 U 44\/15 \u2013 Saint Lawrence .\/. Deutsche Telekom<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2015-04-23-6-U-44_15-DE-pdf-1-pdf-1.pdf\">6 U 44\/15<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2015-04-23-6-U-44_15-EN-pdf-1.pdf\">[EN] 6 U 44\/15<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tBeschluss (zeitlich vor EuGH-Entscheidung Huawei\/ZTE) \u00fcber die vorl\u00e4ufige Einstellung der Zwangsvollstreckung eines vom LG Mannheim erlassenen Urteils.\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"d417a8d4a03dd8599\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Grunds\u00e4tzlich kann der Patentinhaber eine einstweilige Verf\u00fcgung gegen jedes Unternehmen in der Lieferkette beantragen<\/li>\n<li>Die FRAND-Erkl\u00e4rung f\u00fchrt zu der berechtigten Erwartung, dass der SEP-Inhaber zuerst dem Hersteller ein Angebot macht<\/li>\n<li>Klagen gegen Distributoren zu erheben, w\u00e4hrend in anderen F\u00e4llen Lizenzen an Hersteller vergeben werden, stellt einen Widerspruch zur eigenen Lizenzierungspraxis dar<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n\t<section class=\"section text-box text-box--variant-1 \">\n\t\t\n\t\t<h2><strong>Regional Court Munich<\/strong><\/h2>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/section>\n\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Regional Court Munich, 05 August 2022, docket no. 21 O 11522\/21 &#8211; Pitch-Lag Sch\u00e4tzung (see also 21 O 8879\/21 and 21 O 8890\/21)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/LG-Muenchen-I-05.08.2022-21-O-11522_21-Pitch-Lag-Schaetzung.pdf\">21 O 11522\/21<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/LG-Muenchen-I-05.08.2022-21-O-11522_21-Pitch-Lag-Schaetzung-EN.pdf\">[EN] 21 O 11522\/21<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tRequirements regarding the infringer&#8217;s conduct and disproportionality in FRAND cases\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<ul>\n<li>The infringer&#8217;s unwillingness to take a license can be shown by a delay in<\/li>\n<li>The infringer is not only required to purposefully participate in the negotiations concerning a license agreement, but also has to carry out the next negotiating step in accordance with business practice and the principles of good faith.<\/li>\n<li>From a certain stage of negotiations on, the infringer must not be content with improving his own offer step by step. Rather, he must approach the patentee.<\/li>\n<li>The fact that a patent exploiter asserts the claim for injunctive relief does not in itself result in the claim being disproportionate. Nothing different follows from the fact that the SEP holder is seeking a license agreement and thus wishes to monetize its patents. This is because on basis of his FRAND declaration he is obliged to offer the infringer a license.<\/li>\n<li>In case of the assertion of SEP, disproportionality due to the complexity of the products is generally out of question. This applies at least in the case that the infringer is unwilling to take a license. If the SEP holder complies with its FRAND obligations, Sec. 139 (1) 3 Patent Act does not provide the infringer with an additional defense justifying disproportionality in the absence of further circumstances.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Regional Court Munich, 25 May 2022, docket no. 7 O 14091\/19 &#8211; Sprachsignalcodierer II<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2022-05-25-LG-Muenchen-I-7-O-14091_19-Sprachsignalcodierer-II.pdf\">7 O 14091\/19<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2022-05-25-Regional-Court-Munich-I-7-O-14091_19-Sprachsignalcodierer-II-EN.pdf\">[EN] 7 O 14091\/19<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tUnwillingness to take a license shown by delaying tactics\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<ul>\n<li>Delay tactics can be considered in particular if the infringer does not react to the patentee\u2018s explanations within a reasonable period of time.<\/li>\n<li>If the license rate only depends on a few factors, a counter-offer after more than five months after sending the offer is not timely but delayed.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Regional Court Munich, 19 April 2023, docket no. 21 O 1910\/22 &#8211; Rahmenl\u00f6schung<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2023-04-19-LG-Muenchen-I-21-O-1910_22-Rahmenloeschung.pdf\">21 O 1910\/22<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2023-04-19-Regional-Court-Munich-I-21-O-1910_22-Rahmenloeschung_en.pdf\">[EN] 21 O 1910\/22<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tUnwillingness to take a license due to hesitant negotiation\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<ul>\n<li>The infringer&#8217;s unwillingness to take a license can be shown by a delay in the negotiations and if he wants to enforce its own (financial) licensing conditions against the plaintiff<\/li>\n<\/ul>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n\t<section class=\"section text-box text-box--variant-1 \">\n\t\t\n\t\t<p><strong>Guidance on the handling of the FRAND defence following Huawei v. ZTE within the Munich proceedings in patent litigation (as at: February 2020)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/hinweise_frand_und_muenchner_verfahren__stand_februar_2020_.pdf\">FRAND hinweise<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2020-02-04-Munich-FRAND-Guidelines.pdf\">FRAND guidelines<\/a><\/p>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/section>\n\n\n\t<section class=\"section text-box text-box--variant-1 \">\n\t\t\n\t\t<p><strong>Guidance on the handling of requests for secrecy in and outside oral proceedings in patent litigation before the Munich Regional Court I (as at: February 2020)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/hinweise_geheimhaltung__stand_februar_2020_.pdf\">Geheimhaltung<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 <strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2020-02-04-Munich-Confidentiality-Guidelines.pdf\">Confidentiality<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/section>\n\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Regional Court Munich, 17. February 2023, docket no. 21 O 4140\/21 \u2013 GE Video Compression LLC .\/. TCL<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2023-02-17-LG-Muenchen-21-O-4140_21.pdf\">21 O 4140\/21<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2023-02-17-Regional-Court-Munich-21-O-4140_21.pdf\">[EN] 21 O 4140\/21<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tSpecification of the requirements for the mutual willingness to license on the part of the patent proprietor and patent user\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<ul>\n<li>In FRAND negotiations, the parties must negotiate swiftly, conducively and constructively and articulate their interests;<\/li>\n<li>A patentee is usually unwilling to grant a license if it insists on discriminatory or arbitrary terms and is unwilling to waive them even at the end of the negotiations;<\/li>\n<li>A patent user can generally demand as much information and dispute as much with non-knowledge as it likes. After several years of negotiation and after repeating this behaviour several times, however, this behaviour is in any case no longer conducive and constructive;<\/li>\n<li>If a patent user requests and receives information from the patentee, it must deal with the information provided and incorporate the information into new negotiating positions;<\/li>\n<li>The patent user is unwilling to take a license if he claims that the licensing terms are worse than those of the competition, but he is not willing to enter into a license agreement on those terms;<\/li>\n<li>If the patent user is unwilling to take a license, it has no right to production of comparative license agreements;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Regional Court Munich, 24 June 2021, docket no. 7 O 36\/21 \u2013 Urteil IP Bridge .\/. Huawei<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2021-06-24-LG-Muenchen-7-O-36-21-DE.pdf\">7 O 36\/21<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2021-06-24-RC-Munich-7-O-36-21-EN.pdf\">[EN] 7 O 36\/21<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tUrteil zur Aufrechterhaltung einer Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction ohne vorangehende Anti-Suit-Injunction\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<ul>\n<li>Die f\u00fcr eine Anti-Anti-Suit-Injunction notwendige Erstbegehungsgefahr kann auch dann vorliegen, wenn der Antragsgegner selbst noch keine Anti-Suit-Injunction beantragt oder erwirkt hat.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Regional Court Munich, 25 February 2021, docket no. 7 O 14276\/20 \u2013 Urteil InterDigital .\/. Xiaomi<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2021-01-28-LG-Muenchen-I-7-O-14276-20-DE.pdf\">7 O 14276\/20<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2021-01-28-LG-Muenchen-I-7-O-14276-20-EN.pdf\">[EN] 7 O 14276\/20<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tAufrechterhaltung einer Anti-Anti-Suit-Injunction durch das LG M\u00fcnchen I mit Hinweisen zur Lizenzwilligkeit des SEP-Verletzers.\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<ul>\n<li>Ein vermeintlicher Patentverletzer, der einen Antrag auf Erlass einer Anti-Suit Injunction (ASI) stellt oder dies androht, kann in der Regel nicht als hinreichend lizenzwillig im Sinne der Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs der Europ\u00e4ischen Union und des Bundesgerichtshofs angesehen werden.<\/li>\n<li>Bisherige Antr\u00e4ge auf Erlass einer ASI wurden s\u00e4mtlich damit begr\u00fcndet, eine Hauptsacheklage im Erlassstaat zu sch\u00fctzen. Diese wiederum ist auf die Argumentation gest\u00fctzt, der Patentbenutzer sei lizenzwillig.<\/li>\n<li>Wenn aber der Patentbenutzer wirklich lizenzwillig ist, wird er sich weiterer rechtswidriger Eingriffe in die Rechte des Patentinhabers enthalten.<\/li>\n<li>Da das deutsche Gericht das FRAND-Angebot des Patentinhabers wegen der fehlenden Lizenzwilligkeit des Beklagten nicht pr\u00fcft, kommt es nicht zu einem Konflikt mit der Lizenzberechnung durch das chinesische Gericht.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Regional Court Munich, 11 July 2019, docket no. 21 O 9333\/19 \u2013 Beschluss Nokia .\/. Continental AG<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/DE-21-O-9333-19.pdf\">21 O 9333\/19<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/EN-21-O-9333-19.pdf\">[EN] 21 O 9333\/19<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tBeschluss mit dem ein deutsches Gericht erstmals eine sog. anti anti-suit injunction erl\u00e4sst. \t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"14a6fe9a469d580df\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<div id=\"02fd0a5131645c498\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Die Antragsgegnerin darf keine Ma\u00dfnahmen ergreifen, die die Rechtsverfolgung durch die Antragstellerin in Deutschland verhindert, konkret die Verfolgung einer anti-suit injunction gegen die Antragstellerin in einem Parallelverfahren in den USA<\/li>\n<li>Ein ausl\u00e4ndisches Verfahren, welches darauf abzielt der Antragstellerin in Deutschland der Klagebefugnis zu berauben, stellt einen rechtswidrigen Eingriff in die Rechte der Antragstellerin dar<\/li>\n<li>F\u00fcr die Beurteilung der Rechtswidrigkeit ist die deutsche Rechtsordnung entscheidend, Rechtm\u00e4\u00dfigkeit ergibt sich nicht aus der Rechtm\u00e4\u00dfigkeit einer anti-suit injunction in den USA<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>Regional Court Munich, 10 September 2020, docket no. 7 O 8818\/19 \u2013 Urteil Sharp .\/. Daimler<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2020-09-10-LG-Muenchen-7-O-8818_19-DE.pdf\">7 O 8818\/19<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2020-09-10-LG-Muenchen-7-O-8818_19-EN.pdf\">[EN] 7 o 8818\/19<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tZur Lizenzierung von SEP mit FRAND-Erkl\u00e4rung in der Lieferkette\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"14a6fe9a469d580df\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Eine FRAND-Verpflichtungserkl\u00e4rung verpflichtet den SEP-Inhaber nicht zur Lizenzvergabe an jedermann, sondern nur zur Gew\u00e4hrung des Zugangs zur standardisierten Technik<\/li>\n<li>Ein SEP-Inhaber verh\u00e4lt sich grunds\u00e4tzlich nicht missbr\u00e4uchlich, wenn er zun\u00e4chst nur dem Hersteller des Endprodukts eine SEP-Portfoliolizenz anbietet (kein \u201elicense-to-all\u201c).<\/li>\n<li>Die ernsthafte Lizenzwilligkeit erfordert die Erkl\u00e4rung des Lizenzsuchers, eine Lizenz zu \u201ewhatever terms may in fact be FRAND\u201c abschlie\u00dfen zu wollen. Dabei kommt es auf die Beurteilung des Gesamtverhaltens der Parteien an.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n\t<section class=\"section text-box text-box--variant-1 \">\n\t\t\n\t\t<h2><strong>Higher Regional Court Munich<\/strong><\/h2>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/section>\n\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>HRC Munich, 20 March 2025 \u2013 docket no. 6 U 3824\/22 Kart<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0 \u00a0<a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/Higher-Regional-Court-Munich-Judgement-from-20.03.2025-6-U-3824_22-Kart.pdf\">[EN] 6 U 3824\/22 Kart<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/OLG-Muenchen-Urteil-vom-20.03.2025-6-U-3824_22-Kart.pdf\"> 6 U 3824\/22 Kart<\/a><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\t Review of the FRAND objection taking into account the Amicus Curiae Brief of the European Commission dated 15 April 2024 II\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"14a6fe9a469d580df\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>The FRAND objection only serves as a corrective against an abuse of the injunction contrary to antitrust law and must not effectively curtail the legal position of the SEP holder. It is understood as a \u2018dolo agit\u2019 defence (Section 242 of the German Civil Code) and only applies if the defendant has a right to be granted a FRAND licence.<\/li>\n<li>The negotiation steps mentioned by the ECJ in the Huawei ruling (GRUR 2015, 764) must be followed by the parties in principle. However, strict compliance with these steps should not be an end in itself.<\/li>\n<li>In injunction proceedings, the meaning and purpose of the individual steps must be considered and whether a party can (still) invoke purely formal \u2018errors\u2019 in a step taken at an earlier stage of the proceedings in good faith at a later stage of the court proceedings.<\/li>\n<li>If the defendant does not provide adequate security, the FRAND objection does not apply \u2013 even if the claimant&#8217;s offer was not FRAND-compliant.<\/li>\n<li>The amount of the security must be based on the patent proprietor&#8217;s last offer, not on the defendant&#8217;s counteroffer. The security must also include a binding declaration of acceptance in the event that the plaintiff&#8217;s offer is FRAND and the infringement is confirmed.<\/li>\n<li>An isolated consideration of the patent in suit or a reduction to the German market is inadmissible if the offer relates to a worldwide portfolio licence.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>HRC Munich, 30 October 2024 \u2013 docket no. 6 U 38244\/22<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0 \u00a0<a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2024-12-11-Regional-Court-Munich_-order-dated-30-October-2024-\u2013-6-U-382422-Missbrauch-der-Marktmacht.pdf\">[EN] 6 U 38244\/22<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2024-12-11-OLG-Muenchen_-Beschluss-v.-30.10.2024-6-U-382422-Missbrauch-der-Marktmacht.pdf\"> 6 U 38244\/22<\/a><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tOn the examination of the FRAND objection in the light of the European Commission&#8217;s Amicus Curiae Brief dated 15 April 2024\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"14a6fe9a469d580df\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>It is sufficient for a notice of the patent infringement to lodge a complaint for damages, information and rendering of accounts (mn. 4);<\/li>\n<li>A mere conditional statement of willingness to take a license does not automatically and without exception lead to a lack of willingness to take a license (para. 6 et seq.);<\/li>\n<li>The patentee\u2019s obligation to make an offer to the potential licensee does not apply if the potential licensee does not respond to the notice of infringement within a reasonable period of time or expresses by his conduct that he is not interested to take a license (mn. 9);<\/li>\n<li>The patentee can no longer invoke the initial lack of willingness to take a license if he has made an offer to the potential licensee and if the parties are negotiating with each other (mn. 10);<\/li>\n<li>A FRAND offer from the patentee must be accepted by the potential licensee (mn. 16);<\/li>\n<li>The potential licensee\u2019s FRAND objection does not yet prevail if the patentee\u2019s first offer was not FRAND-compliant, as the potential licensee must submit a specific FRAND-compliant counter-offer in writing within a short time period in response to the patentee\u2019s offer (mn 23 et seq.);<\/li>\n<li>It is not yet decided whether the step \u201ccounteroffer by the potential licensee\u201d can be skipped because the patentee must have the chance to improve his first offer (left open in the specific case; mn. 28);<\/li>\n<li>If the patentee does not accept the counteroffer, the potential licensee must provide adequate security (mn. 30);<\/li>\n<li>The counteroffer and the provision of the security substantiate the continued willingness to take a license (mn. 32);<\/li>\n<li>Who provides adequate security is generally considered to be willing to take a license; in principle, delaying tactics are then no longer relevant as the delay is remedied by the security (mn. 32 et seq.);<\/li>\n<li>The security secures the royalty of a license agreement; the amount of the security must be based on the patentee\u2019s last offer and \u2013 in the case of worldwide portfolio licences \u2013 must not be calculated down to only a part of the territory (mn. 34);<\/li>\n<li>The potential licensee must ensure by means of a binding declaration that the patentee will receive the security if its offer proves to be FRAND-compliant and the patent infringement asserted in the action for an injunction is finally upheld (mn. 36);<\/li>\n<li>If the potential licensee provides security, the way is open for the FRAND examination of the plaintiff&#8217;s offer (mn. 37);<\/li>\n<li>The security can also be provided at a later date (mn. 38).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>HRC Munich, 12 December 2019 \u2013 docket no. 6 U 5042\/19 \u2013 Nokia .\/. Continental<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2019-12-12-OLG-Muenchen-6-U-5042_19-DE.pdf\">6 U 5042\/19<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2019-12-12-OLG-Muenchen-6-U-5042_19-EN.pdf\">[EN] 6 U 5042\/19<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tDie Beantragung einer Anti-Suit Injunction vor einem amerikanischen Gericht mit dem Ziel, die Durchsetzung von Unterlassungsanspr\u00fcchen wegen Patentverletzung im Inland zu verhindern, stellt eine Beeintr\u00e4chtigung der eigentums\u00e4hnlichen Rechtsposition des Patentinhabers dar.\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"14a6fe9a469d580df\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n\t<section class=\"section text-box text-box--variant-1 \">\n\t\t\n\t\t<h2><strong>Federal Court of Justice<\/strong><\/h2>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/section>\n\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>FCJ, 24 January 2023, X ZR 123\/20 \u2013 FRAND-Einwand &#8211; CQI-Bericht II<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2023-02-21-X_ZR_123-20-CQI-Bericht-II.pdf\">X ZR 123\/20<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2023-02-21-English-courtesy-translation-FCJ-X-ZR-123_20-CQI-Bericht-II.pdf\">[EN] X ZR 123\/20<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tExhaustion with regard to a covenant to be sued last\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"14a6fe9a469d580df\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<div id=\"6d0970d1075a2442a\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>A covenant not to sue contains a consent to place the products on the market; the products placed on the market are generally subject to exhaustion;<\/li>\n<li>A contractual reservation to take action against customers of the products is basically irrelevant;<\/li>\n<li>A covenant to be sued last results in exhaustion if the contractual partner has to fear being sued by the patentee in the course normally to be expected;<\/li>\n<li>As far as products subject to exhaustion have been implemented in a larger device, the rights on a larger device may be exhausted if the implementation is the only commercially reasonable use and the consent also relates to the overall device.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>FCJ, 24 November 2020, KZR 35\/17 \u2013 FRAND-Einwand II \u2013 Urteil Sisvel .\/. Haier<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2020-11-24_BGH_Sisvel-Haier_II_-KZR-35_17-DE.pdf\">KZR 35\/17<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2020-11-24_BGH_Sisvel-Haier_II_-KZR-35_17-EN.pdf\">[EN] KZR 35\/17<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tVerhaltenspflichten der Parteien bei kartellrechtlichem Zwangslizenzeinwand\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"14a6fe9a469d580df\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<div id=\"6d0970d1075a2442a\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Der u.a. auf Unterlassung klagende Inhaber eines standardessentiellen Patents (SEP) missbraucht seine Marktmacht nicht, wenn der Verletzer nicht unzweideutig zu erkennen gegeben hat, eine Lizenz zu fairen, angemessenen und nicht-diskriminierenden (FRAND) Bedingungen anzustreben.<\/li>\n<li>Die Lizenzwilligkeit des Verletzers darf sich grunds\u00e4tzlich ebenso wenig wie die Lizenzierungsbereitschaft des Patentinhabers in der einmaligen Bekundung des Lizenzierungsinteresses oder der Vorlage eines (Gegen-) Angebots ersch\u00f6pfen. Vielmehr sind beide Parteien gehalten, nach Treu und Glauben und in jeweils situationsangemessener Weise zum Abschluss eines Lizenzvertrags zu FRAND-Bedingungen beizutragen.<\/li>\n<li>Au\u00dferhalb des Anwendungsbereichs des Sukzessionsschutzes nach \u00a7 15 Abs. 3 PatG k\u00f6nnen Einwendungen gegen den fr\u00fcheren Patentinhaber dessen Einzelrechtsnachfolger nicht entgegengehalten werden. Dies gilt insbesondere f\u00fcr den Einwand eines \u201ePatenthinterhalts\u201c (patent ambush).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>FCJ, 5 May 2020, KZR 36\/17 \u2013 FRAND-Einwand \u2013 Urteil Sisvel .\/. Haier<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2020-05-05-BGH-KZR-36_17-DE.pdf\">KZR 36\/17<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2020-05-05-BGH-KZR-36_17-EN.pdf\">[EN] KZR 36\/17<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tObliegenheiten der Parteien bei kartellrechtlichem Zwangslizenzeinwand\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"3c1bde3351fbc7d82\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Die marktbeherrschende Stellung des Patentinhabers liegt vor, wenn das Klagepatent standardessentiell ist und seine technische Lehre nicht durch eine andere Gestaltung des verletzenden Produkts umgangen werden kann. Mit dem Ablauf der Schutzdauer des Patents endet die marktbeherrschende Stellung.<\/li>\n<li>Der Verletzungshinweis des SEP-Inhabers kann sich auf die Nennung des benutzten Patents, die Verletzungshandlung und die konkrete angegriffene Ausf\u00fchrungsform beschr\u00e4nken. Claim Charts sind zul\u00e4ssig. Der Verletzungshinweis kann auch an die Konzernmutter gerichtet sein.<\/li>\n<li>Der Benutzer des standardessenziellen Patents hat grunds\u00e4tzlich die Obliegenheit, seinen Willen und seine Bereitschaft klar und eindeutig zu bekunden, mit dem Patentinhaber einen Lizenzvertrag zu FRAND-Bedingungen abzuschlie\u00dfen. Er hat au\u00dferdem zielf\u00fchrend auf einen Vertragsabschluss hinzuwirken.<\/li>\n<li>Das Angebot eines Portfoliolizenzvertrages ist grunds\u00e4tzlich kartellrechtlich unbedenklich, wenn der Lizenznehmer nicht zu Zahlungen f\u00fcr die Benutzung nicht-standardessentieller Patente verpflichtet und die Verg\u00fctung so berechnet wird, dass Anwender, die ein Produkt f\u00fcr ein spezifisches, geografisch begrenztes Gebiet entwickeln m\u00f6chten, nicht benachteiligt werden.<\/li>\n<li>Der Schadensersatzanspruch des SEP-Inhabers ist nicht grunds\u00e4tzlich nach dem Ma\u00dfstab der Lizenzanalogie beschr\u00e4nkt. Der Verletzer kann dem Schadensersatzanspruch des Patentinhabers aber einen eigenen Schadensersatzanspruch entgegenhalten, der auf die Nichterf\u00fcllung seines Anspruchs auf Abschluss eines Lizenzvertrages zu angemessenen und nicht-diskriminierenden Bedingungen gest\u00fctzt ist.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__text text-box text-box--variant-1\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p><strong>FCJ, 14 January 2020, X ZR 33\/19 \u2013 Akteneinsicht XXIV \u2013 Beschluss Unwired Planet .\/. Huawei<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Download:\u00a0\u00a0 <a class=\"button button--secondary button--primary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2020-01-14-X-ZR-33_19-DE.pdf\">X ZR 33\/19<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<strong><a class=\"link--download button button--primary button--secondary\" href=\"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com:443\/app\/uploads\/2020-01-14-X-ZR-33_19-EN.pdf\">[EN] X ZR 33\/19<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tBest\u00e4tigung von Aspekten der Rechtsprechung zu Vertraulichkeitsvereinbarungen in Rechtsstreitigkeiten mit SEP durch den BGH. Zus\u00e4tzliche Hinweise zum Ansatz von OLG D\u00fcsseldorf, 17.01.2016, Az. I-2 U 31\/16.\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"6c60db4ed1407ad9d\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>Jede Partei des Verfahrens kann Unterlagen als \u201estreng vertraulich\u201c gekennzeichnet zur Gerichtsakte reichen und deren ungeschw\u00e4rzte \u00dcbermittlung an den Gegner unter die Bedingung stellen, dass zuvor eine geeignete Vertraulichkeitsvereinbarung abgeschlossen wird.<\/li>\n<li>Wenn keine Vertraulichkeitsvereinbarung abgeschlossen wird, bleiben die so eingereichten Unterlagen von Akteneinsichtsgesuchen des Gegners ausgeschlossen; das Gericht st\u00fctzt seine Entscheidung dann aber auch nur auf die geschw\u00e4rzten Fassungen der Dokumente.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n\t<section class=\"section text-box text-box--variant-1 \">\n\t\t\n\t\t<h2><strong>Further Decisions<\/strong><\/h2>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/section>\n\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tRegional Court D\u00fcsseldorf\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"b83789bbfe060d4a7\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>LG D\u00fcsseldorf 4a O 144\/14<\/li>\n<li>LG D\u00fcsseldorf 4b O 51\/14<\/li>\n<li>LG D\u00fcsseldorf 4b O 52\/14<\/li>\n<li>LG D\u00fcsseldorf 4a O 126\/14<\/li>\n<li>LG D\u00fcsseldorf 4a O 27\/16<\/li>\n<li>LG D\u00fcsseldorf 4a O 35\/16<\/li>\n<li>LG D\u00fcsseldorf 4a O 154\/15<\/li>\n<li>LG D\u00fcsseldorf 14d O 13\/17<\/li>\n<li>LG D\u00fcsseldorf 4c O 72\/17<\/li>\n<li>LG D\u00fcsseldorf 4c O 77\/17<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tHigher Regional Court D\u00fcsseldorf\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"b83789bbfe060d4a7\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>OLG D\u00fcsseldorf I-15 U 65\/15<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>\n\n<section class=\"section collapse \">\n\t\n\t<div class=\"collapse__list\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<details class=\"collapse__item\">\n\t\t\t\t<summary class=\"collapse__title\">\n\t\t\t\t\tRegional Court Mannheim\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"collapse__icon\"><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__container collapse\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"collapse__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"d88ad7f6682d40cea\" class=\"panel-collapse collapse in\">\n<div class=\"panel-body toggle-content fusion-clearfix\">\n<ul>\n<li>LG Mannheim 7 O 66\/15<\/li>\n<li>LG Mannheim 7 O 38\/14<\/li>\n<li>LG Mannheim 7 O 24\/14<\/li>\n<li>LG Mannheim 7 O 96\/14<\/li>\n<li>LG Mannheim 7 O 26\/14<\/li>\n<li>LG Mannheim 7 O 209\/15<\/li>\n<li>LG Mannheim 7 O 298\/15<\/li>\n<li>LG Mannheim 2 O 130\/15<\/li>\n<li>LG Mannheim 2 O 229\/15<\/li>\n<li>LG Mannheim 7 O 43\/16<\/li>\n<li>LG Mannheim 7 O 44\/16<\/li>\n<li>LG Mannheim 7 O 213\/15<\/li>\n<li>LG Mannheim 7 O 212\/15<\/li>\n<li>LG Mannheim 7 O 31\/16<\/li>\n<li>LG Mannheim 7 O 98\/16<\/li>\n<li>LG Mannheim 2 O 98\/16<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/details>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/section>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":803,"menu_order":2,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-3009","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/3009","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3009"}],"version-history":[{"count":81,"href":"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/3009\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10138,"href":"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/3009\/revisions\/10138"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/803"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.katheraugenstein.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3009"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}