Nokia vs Asus and Acer: Regional Court Munich redefines FRAND rules

Just yesterday, the Federal Court of Justice upheld an injunction by the Regional and Higher Regional Court of Munich against HMD, largely confirming current Munich FRAND case law. Only days earlier, the Munich Regional Court heard another FRAND case. The dispute between Nokia and computer manufacturers Asus and Acer concerned the infringement of Nokia’s EP 2 375 749 for video coding.

The 7th Civil Chamber at Munich Regional Court, under presiding judge Oliver Schön, heard the two lawsuits for a full day on 22 January. On the same day the judges found that Acer and Asus are not willing to take a licence and had infringed EP 749 (case IDs: Acer 7 O 4100/25 and Asus 7 O 4102/25). It is considered certain that Nokia will enforce the judgments and that both implementers will appeal.

Video codec in focus

In spring 2025, Nokia filed patent claims against Acer, Asus and Hisense at Munich Regional Court and the UPC over video codec patents. Nokia alleged that Acer and Asus’ PCs and Hisense’s smart TVs infringe three of its patents. While proceedings concerning EP 2 375 749 and EP 2 774 375 are pending at Munich Regional Court, Nokia filed an action regarding EP 2 661 892 at the UPC local division Munich. All relate to the H.265 video codec standard.

In early January, Hisense took a licence while the lawsuits against Acer and Asus continue.

Taiwanese computer manufacturer Acer responded with its own lawsuits against Nokia concerning wireless communication technology at Munich Regional Court. In a parallel UK action, the implementers asked the High Court to determine a RAND rate for Nokia’s video streaming portfolio. Just before Christmas, UK High Court judge James Mellor granted an interim licence to Acer and Asus (case IDs: HP-2025-000030, 000032).

Nokia also filed separate US lawsuits in spring 2025, claiming Acer and Asus’ computers infringe its SEPs.

New rules in Munich

A ruling against two implementers for using an SEP is not unusual for the Munich court, nor is the same-day judgment. JUVE Patent understands that the 7th Civil Chamber now forms an opinion on cases in advance. If the judges see this confirmed at the oral hearing, they deliver their judgment on the same day. Under German procedural law, a same-day judgment does not require immediate substantiation. The reasons follow in the written judgment.

At the hearing, presiding judge Oliver Schön and his colleagues indicated additional modifications to the Munich FRAND guidelines. The focus remains on implementer willingness and security deposits. The 7th Civil Chamber provided more specific guidance on this last summer.

Following a FRAND hearing in the Samsung vs ZTE dispute, Munich Regional Court’s 7th Civil Chamber outlined its approach to several questions not yet fully clarified by case law.

In November 2024, Munich Higher Regional Court ruled in HMD vs VoiceAge that “continuing willingness to take a licence” requires implementers to provide reasonable security, such as a bank guarantee. The SEP holder’s offer determines this. However, contrary to the second-instance court’s opinion, Munich Regional Court does not consider security deposits mandatory for patent users to prove their willingness to take a licence.

Taking interim licences into account

Simultaneously, patent owners cannot be expected to rely solely on security deposits. The note states that patent proprietors do not have missing income available for investments. Therefore, patent users must pay undisputed sums immediately. Last Thursday, according to those present, presiding judge Schön indicated how the court envisages this point.

The implementer must pay the amount of its own FRAND offer to the SEP holder. However, these offers are usually low. In UK FRAND-rate setting procedures, Schön said, an interim licence fee could help, provided the UK court has set this. The implementer would then need to deposit the difference between its offer and the interim licence fee with the court as security.

These considerations will likely appear as obiter dictum in the written judgment. However, they were not relevant for the Asus and Acer ruling, despite the UK High Court having already set an interim licence.

According to JUVE Patent sources, future judgments should provide greater clarity for cases where the implementer has not pursued UK FRAND-rate setting proceedings. The court will also examine whether the SEP holder’s offer is FRAND-compliant.

For now, the Regional and Higher Regional Courts disagree on assessing security amounts. The Federal Court of Justice hearing in VoiceAge vs HMD yesterday brought no clarity, though the judges may still provide guidance to lower courts in their written judgment.

Long-standing representation

Nokia relied on a cross-border team from Bird & Bird. Düsseldorf partner Christian Harmsen led the German and UPC proceedings with support from Jörg Witting, Tobias Wilcke, and Tamy Tietze. A Munich team under partner Boris Kreye leads the defence against Acer’s case. Richard Vary represented Nokia in the UK SEP proceedings.

Patent attorneys Christoph Walke and Lars Grannemann of Cohausz & Florack advised on technical matters in both cases.

A Nokia team comprising Head of Global Litigation and Disputes Clemens Heusch and newly appointed Head of Litigation Programme Management Armin Schwitulla handled the lawsuits internally.

Wildanger and Taliens for the implementers

Acer relies on a Taliens team comprising Thomas Lynker, Christian Werner, Evelyn Höfer, and Thomas Reithmann. A team under Jörn Peters from Casalonga filed the active claims for Acer.

Wildanger Kehrwald Graf v. Schwerin & Partner represents Asus against Nokia. Partners Eva Geschke and Alexander Weise lead the team. The Düsseldorf IP boutique has previously represented Asus against other SEP holders.

Asus’ patent attorney in court is Tilman Taruttis from Düsseldorf firm Keenway while Acer relies on patent attorneys Philipp Harlfinger and Claus Becker. Both are partners at Hamburg firm Glawe Delfs Moll.