Short Summary
This is a preliminary order from the Local Division The Hague concerning a case management hearing held on 23 February 2026 in an infringement action brought by Dolby International AB against CPYou B.V. and multiple Acer entities regarding European Patent EP3079153, which relates to the OPUS standard. The hearing addressed issues including the patent pool administered by Vectis, potential counterclaims for rate setting against Vectis, and the applicability of FRAND/Huawei v ZTE framework given that the patent at issue is part of the pool but not subject to a FRAND declaration. The presiding judge urged parties to continue negotiations and noted that a parallel OPUS case in the Dusseldorf Local Division expected a decision in mid-March 2026 that could serve as a benchmark.
Detailed Summary
Dolby International AB, an Irish company, filed an infringement action against CPYou B.V. and several Acer entities, including Acer Italy s.r.l., Acer Computer GmbH, Acer Computer B.V (Benelux), Acer Denmark A/S, Acer Finland Oy, Acer Computer France, and Acer Sweden AB. The patent at issue is European Patent No. EP3079153, owned by Dolby International AB. The proceedings were conducted in English before the Local Division The Hague, with presiding judge and judge rapporteur Edger Brinkman.
The case management hearing, held online behind closed doors on 23 February 2026 due to the discussion of confidential information, addressed several key issues. A central topic was the patent pool administered by Vectis, which consists of 300 granted patents across 17 families, with 8 families belonging to Dolby, 8 to Fraunhofer, and 1 to NTT. Dolby noted that most of its UPC cases to date concerned video codecs, and that a parallel case in the Dusseldorf Local Division involving the OPUS standard against a different defendant was pending, with a decision expected in mid-March 2026 that could provide insight on the FRAND issue. Another case against Acer was pending in the Hamburg division, brought by a different company from the OPUS pool but ranked behind the present case.
A significant point of dispute concerned whether the patent at issue and the one in Hamburg were subject to a FRAND declaration. Dolby indicated that while these patents are part of the pool, they are not subject to a FRAND declaration, which impacts the applicability of the FRAND/Huawei v ZTE framework. Additionally, Acer was considering filing a counterclaim for rate setting, also against Vectis. Acer had requested on 3 February 2026 to add Vectis as a party to enable such a counterclaim, arguing that as a pool licensor, Vectis should not be able to avoid a counterclaim. Vectis opposed this addition, contending that Rule 305 does not apply, though it did not oppose being an intervener.
& Analysis
The presiding judge urged the parties to keep negotiations going and suggested that any sticky points could be submitted for a preliminary opinion. The court acknowledged the relevance of the pending Dusseldorf decision as a potential benchmark for the FRAND issues in the present case. The court noted that the question of adding Vectis as a party for purposes of a counterclaim would be further addressed in the parties' submissions scheduled for 9 March 2026.
Final Order & Ruling
The order was a preliminary order summarizing the case management hearing of 23 February 2026. The court invited parties to provide any important comments on the summary within two days. The substantive issues, including the addition of Vectis as a party and the FRAND applicability, were reserved for further submissions and consideration.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before The Hague (NL) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Dolby International AB vs CPYou B.V. / Acer et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.