Key takeaways
Parallel Rate-Setting Proceedings Do Not Take Priority (R. 334 RoP; Preamble Nr. 7 RoP)
The Hamburg Local Division rejected the argument that a pending pool-wide rate-setting counterclaim at another Local Division should take precedence over infringement proceedings involving a different pool contributor. Pursuing a licence determination elsewhere does not, in itself, justify postponing an already scheduled infringement hearing. The one-year target for oral hearings under Preamble Nr. 7 RoP weighs strongly against adjournment.
Same Patent Pool, Independent FRAND Assessments
Even where parallel disputes concern the same patent pool licence, each panel must assess the FRAND defence independently. Findings in one case may be of factual interest for the other, but neither proceeding automatically takes priority or is prejudicial to the other. This applies equally to decisions by UPC panels and national courts. The parties in the two proceedings are not identical, which further precludes any binding effect.
Injunction Timing Can Be Addressed Without Delaying the Hearing (R. 352 RoP)
The court identified enforcement timing under R. 352 RoP and a request for suspensive effect before the Court of Appeal as available tools to manage the consequences of a potential injunction. These mechanisms allow enforcement risks arising from parallel licensing proceedings to be addressed separately, without deferring the infringement hearing itself.
Division
LD Hamburg
UPC number
UPC_CFI_2231/2025
Type of proceedings
Infringement; request to adjourn oral hearing
Parties
Claimant: Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V.
Defendants: Acer Computer GmbH; CPYou B.V.; Acer Italy s.r.L.; Acer Computer B.V. (Benelux); Acer Computer France
Patent(s)
EP 2 304 723
Jurisdictions
UPC
Body of legislation / Rules
R. 334 RoP; R. 331.1 RoP; R. 335 RoP; R. 352 RoP; R. 223 RoP; Preamble Nr. 7 RoP
