Short Summary
This case concerns an application by Access Advance LLC, the administrator of a HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against several TCL entities regarding European patent EP 2 645 714 B1. The Defendants opposed the intervention, arguing that Access Advance lacked a legal interest and that allowing it would circumvent a non-disclosure agreement and potentially violate Article 101 TFEU. The Local Division Munich admitted the intervention in support of the Claimant, subject to strict confidentiality restrictions limiting Access Advance's access to certain sensitive information.
Detailed Summary
NEC Corporation (the Claimant) brought patent infringement proceedings against multiple TCL entities (the Defendants) before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court, based on European patent EP 2 645 714 B1. The Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent, and Defendant 1 (TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG) additionally filed a counterclaim for a FRAND license offer. NEC had contributed the patent in suit to a pool for HEVC standard essential patents, which is administered by Access Advance LLC (the Applicant). As pool administrator, Access Advance is authorized to grant licenses under the pooled patents, contacts implementers, conducts license negotiations, and is obliged to take over and fulfil the licensors' FRAND obligations. Access Advance had attempted for several years to negotiate a pool license with the Defendants without success, and the parties had entered into a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) restricting disclosure of negotiation content to the Munich Regional Court I but not to NEC.
Access Advance applied to intervene in the proceedings in support of NEC, arguing it had a genuine legal interest because the Defendants were allegedly incorrectly arguing that Access Advance had not offered a FRAND license and were accusing it of violating Article 102 TFEU. Access Advance also sought access to the case file through NEC's representatives (who also represented Access Advance) and requested access to any confidential information for specified persons.
The Claimant did not object to the intervention. The Defendants opposed it, arguing that Access Advance had not established a legal interest under Rule 313 RoP, that its interest was merely economic and indirect, and that the intervention constituted an abuse of process designed to circumvent the NDA and European antitrust law restrictions. They contended that allowing the intervention would enable the sharing of commercially sensitive information in violation of Article 101 TFEU, and alternatively requested that the proceedings be stayed and a question referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Defendants further argued that Access Advance should not have access to confidential information in the Statement of Defence.
The Court, presided over by Judge Ulrike Voß, admitted the intervention. It held that a patent pool administrator has a legal interest in the outcome of proceedings within the meaning of Rule 313 RoP. The Court rejected the argument that admission would violate Article 101 TFEU, finding that the applicant and a party have the possibility to exchange sensitive information under competition law in their written submissions, and that allowing an intervention as such does not constitute a violation of Article 101 TFEU. The Court held that once admitted, the intervener becomes a party and must be treated as such under Rule 315(4) RoP, and must be allowed access to the file to conduct the proceedings properly. However, where the court had already classified certain information as confidential and granted only limited access under Rule 262a RoP, the intervener could not be granted unlimited access to such information.
The Court ordered Access Advance to lodge its statement of intervention within the deadline for the Claimant's reply to the Statement of Defence and defence to the counterclaim for revocation. It permitted Access Advance to inspect the files through the Claimant's representatives, subject to detailed confidentiality restrictions. The Court imposed strict confidentiality obligations on specified individuals, including representatives Dr. Tilmann Müller and Dr. Volkmar Henke, with potential penalty payments of up to EUR 250,000 per culpable breach. The Court also established procedural arrangements for the filing and forwarding of documents through the CMS via the Claimant's representatives.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in NEC Corporation vs TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd., 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.