HMD Global and Hogan Lovells successfully fend off Huawei lawsuits

Huawei sued HMD Global in November 2022 at the Regional Court of Munich based on three patents in its 4G and 5G portfolio. The dispute concerns EP 3 573 392, EP 2 528 366, and EP 3 407 519. The Chinese mobile communications provider claims these are SEPs.

In autumn last year, the 21st Civil Chamber dismissed the actions concerning EP 519 and 392 (case IDs: 21 O 14266/22 and 21 O 13091/22). The Regional Court Munich did not find them infringed. The Federal Patent Court dismissed parallel nullity actions filed by HMD against both patents this spring (case IDs: 4 Ni 27/23 and 5 Ni 16/23).

Appeals in both the infringement actions and nullity suits are pending.

Third time’s a charm

Huawei’s third infringement action has now also failed. The Regional Court Munich has found HMD’s products do not infringe EP 366 (case ID: 21 O 13092/22). In March, the German Federal Patent Court found EP 366 to be partly invalid, except for a claim on functionality performed at network level (case ID: 4 Ni 23/23).

The panel of judges in Munich under presiding judge Georg Werner dismissed the claim of indirect infringement by the handset device. The court ruled that, while the phone was involved in the process initiated by the network, it did not form an essential element of the claim. For this reason, the court saw no reason to rule on the FRAND objection, which was dealt with in the oral hearing.

JUVE Patent does not yet know whether Huawei will appeal. However, given the company has appealed in the previous infringement and nullity cases, including the validity judgement regarding EP 366, an appeal in the present case seems likely.

In parallel proceedings, HMD had filed a claim against Huawei at the Regional Court Mannheim based on its own patent EP 2 181 559. However, the court dismissed the claim for lack of infringement (case ID: 2 O 6/23). In addition, the Federal Patent Court limited the patent in parallel nullity proceedings (case ID: 4 Ni 15/23). The Finnish mobile phone manufacturer filed appeals in both cases but later withdrew them.

Huawei has also recently sued HMD at the UPC concerning two patents.

Wildanger for Huawei

Huawei relied on Düsseldorf-based IP boutique Wildanger Kehrwald Graf v. Schwerin & Partner. Partner Ole Dirks led the case, while partners Soenke Fock and Jörg Schmidt and counsel Jan-Caspar Maiers assisted.

While Schmidt and Maiers argued the technical part of the infringement, Dirks and Fock pleaded the FRAND objection. Partner Eva Geschke also played a part in the proceedings over EP 519. Patent attorney and name partner Friedrich Emmerling of Braun-Dullaeus Pannen Emmerling provided advice on technical matters.

Wildanger’s patent litigators have a reputation for SEP disputes, especially representing NPEs such as Crystal Clear Codec or IP Bridge. A team led by Peter-Michael Weisse also represents VoiceAge in a dispute against HMD, for example.

A team from Hogan Lovells represented HMD Global. Partner Andreas von Falck led the case with counsel Oliver Bäcker. Counsel Kerstin Jonen, Lukas Sievers and Felix Banholzer provided support. While Hoyng ROKH Monegier represented HMD in the dispute against VoiceAge, the Finnish manufacturer called in Hogan Lovells for the FRAND issue in the currently pending appeal proceedings at the Higher Regional Court.

This was the first time the team represented HMD. The contact with the Finnish client came through a personal connection between Düsseldorf-based partner Andreas von Falck and Niklas Östmann, a former partner of Swedish-finnish firm Roschier and then lead counsel for HMD.

The patent attorneys of Samson & Partner, Wolfgang Lippich, Georg Jacoby, Isabella von Sivers and, and Martin Vetter, advised on technical questions. The team worked closely with Emma Sopyllo, head of IP and litigation at HMD. Erkki Yli-Juuti from Finnish IP firm Condico also provided advice.