EC AMICUS BRIEF in Re HMD Global Oy vs VoiceAge EVS
15:00 PM- 16:00 PM British Standard Time | 16.00 PM CET | 10.00 a.m. Eastern Time
The European Commission (EC) has recently intervened in German patent law proceedings (In Re HMD Global vs VoiceAge EVS) by submitting an amicus brief, a relatively rare practice in Europe compared to the U.S. This brief was submitted to offer guidance on the interpretation of European case law regarding Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), particularly in relation to the Huawei v. ZTE ruling. With tensions slowly rising between German Courts and the European Commission on account of the new SEP regulation, the amicus brief might just aggravate relations further.
One of the main issues addressed in the amicus brief is the procedural requirements for infringement alerts. The EC emphasizes that the infringement alert must be precise and include detailed information about the patent and the infringement, which was not followed in the instant case, where only a website was referenced. The EC insists that these procedural steps of the FRAND dance must be fulfilled before filing a complaint or seeking injunctive relief, something German courts have not consistently enforced.
Another significant point discussed is the declaration of willingness to negotiate a FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) license. According to the EC, this willingness must be demonstrated in a sequential manner, before any litigation starts. The brief stands in contrast to German court practises which are more forgiving allowing SEP holders to amend and add additional claims lis-pendens. complaints to file lawsuits without sufficiently engaging in negotiations beforehand. This diverges from the purpose of the Huawei v. ZTE decision, which aims to promote negotiation without the threat of litigation.
Although the EC’s amicus brief aims to bring clarity and uniformity to SEP litigation, the practical impact of this intervention remains uncertain. Participants in the webinar were polled, with a 100% response rate. 60% of the participants felt that the amicus brief would have no impact on the case before the German Courts. The invited speakers agreed that clarity was needed on addressing diverging approaches between different regional courts in Germany, as well as on the issue of actual FRAND damages determination. Whether this clarity will come from the Federal Court of Justice or a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union is a different matter all together, though a referral to the CJEU may be appropriate here.
All in all, it is now just a matter of waiting till the end of October when the appeals court is expected to publish its decision. Which ever way it goes, it will be interesting to see how German courts react to the EC involving itself in domestic legal disputes.
If you have enjoyed this discussion and want to get involved, consider joining us at the 10th Oxford IP and Competition Conference in Oxford this January, or our Summer Edition later on in 2025 in Europe. Details to come on our website and our LinkedIn page
Please refer to Amicus Brief.pdf and Amicus.pdf
Join OxFirst for a Free Online Webinar
This is one of the first times the European Commission has issued an Amicus Brief, an instrument better known in US rather than European law. The European Commission has submitted an amicus curiae to the Higher Court of Munich, Germany, (Oberlandesgericht Muenchen) regarding an ongoing legal dispute between HMD Global Oy and VoiceAge EVS GmbH & Co KG, concerning the alleged use of standard-essential patents (SEPs). The European Commission emphasizes the need for a consistent interpretation of the Huawei vz ZTE Framework across European courts, highlighting differences in how the Munich and Mannheim courts have assessed similar cases. The brief does not take a position on the merits of the case but seeks to ensure uniform application of competition law. In this webinar we discuss the potential implications of the European Commission’s amicus brief and speculate the effect it may have on future judgments coming out of Munich.
Please refer to Amicus Brief.pdf and Amicus.pdf
About the Speakers
Alexander Haertel, Cluster Lead Patent at Deutsche Telekom
Alex is highly experienced in IP Litigation, especially in regard to patents. He has experience with all major German courts and also experience with invalidation proceedings like opposition or nullity proceedings before the Federal Patent Court/Federal Court of Justice.
Dr Andreas Kramer , Partner, Vossius & Brinkhof UPC Litigators
Andreas Kramer has extensive experience in patent infringement proceedings concerning standard-essential patents (SEPs) and FRAND defenses, in particular in the areas of mobile communication, audio and video codecs. He has been lead counsel in many SEP/FRAND litigations before the German courts and the Unified Patent Court (UPC).
Philipp Rastemborski, LL.M. (Edinburgh), Partner Eisenfuhr Speiser
Philipp Rastemborski represents clients in patent infringement and nullity proceedings, including related licensing matters. He has long-term experience in conducting and coordinating cross-border patent litigation proceedings before the German courts, in particular for US and other international clients. He has extensive experience in the enforcement and FRAND licensing of standard-essential patents (SEP) in the field of mobile communications and throughout the automotive value chain.
How to Join
Register in advance for this webinar:
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.
Attention, please sign up with your professional email account. We don’t accept registrations from personal email addresses. Participation is limited at 100 participants. We reserve the right to eliminate participants. By joining the OxViews webinar you agree to our Privacy Policy (found here) and to receive forthcoming information on our webinars, newsletters and events. The views in this talk are the speaker’s own and do not represent those of OxViews, its employees or consultants.