- within Transport topic(s)
1. Key takeaways
In the FRAND context, a dominant position may exist where consumers expect standard-compliant smart TVs to decode all video codecs covered by the standard
The Düsseldorf Local Division held that a dominant position within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU may arise if smart TVs complying with a common standard cannot realistically be marketed without a licence for the patent in suit. The decisive factor is that consumers expect standard-compliant TVs to include all common audio and video codecs used for encoding.
If the implementer does not complete the initial steps of the FRAND negotiation framework, the patent holder's offer need not be examined further
Following Huawei v ZTE as understood in the UPC's FRAND case law, the Court held that where the infringer fails to indicate willingness to conclude a licence in response to the complaint notice or invitation to negotiate, the analysis ends at that stage. In that situation, the question whether the patentee's offer was FRAND does not need to be investigated. The Court also states that, for the basic structure of the FRAND framework, it aligns with the Mannheim Local Division in Panasonic v Oppo and considers any differences in application between the two divisions irrelevant in the case before it.
2. Division
Düsseldorf Local Division
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_135/2024
UPC_CFI_477/2024
4. Type of proceedings
Infringement action and counterclaim for revocation
5. Parties
Claimant:
Dolby International AB
Defendants:
Beko Germany GmbH; Arçelik A.Ş.
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 605 534
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 102 TFEU
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]