Familie schaut Fernsehen, Router im Vordergrund

Patent exploiter as plaintiff in a FRAND case (LG München I)

District Court Munich (LG München I), Final Judgment of May 16, 2024 – 7 O 4832/23

Decision Keyword:

PILOT TRANSMISSION AND RECEPTION FOR ORTHOGONAL FREQUENCY DIVISION MULTIPLE ACCESS  

Law applied:

European Patent Convention (EPC) Art. 64 para. 1, para. 3

German Patent Act (PatG) 10 para. 1, Section 145a, Section 139 para. 1 sentence 1, Section 140a para. 1, para. 3, Section 140b para. 1, para. 3

TFEU Art. 102

Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) Section 110, Section 148, Section 717 para. 2, para. 3

Summary:

1. When assessing the plaintiff's license offer, it is irrelevant that the plaintiff is a patent exploiter. In the context of a sensible division of labor, it is understandable and beneficial if a separation is made between development and exploitation. This is because innovative forces are only given the opportunity to bring about progress if they are not distracted by exploitation requirements. There is therefore a legitimate interest, and one that is even worthy of support, in delegating the exploitation of patents to specialized units.

2. The exploitation of patents by companies without their own development activities represents an economically reasonable division of labor that serves to promote innovation. Therefore, the antitrust requirements for NPEs (Non-Practicing Entity) and inventors are identical.

3. If the defendants assert a possible counterclaim significantly exceeding the amount in dispute pursuant to Section 717 (3) Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), they must make a substantiated submission in this regard and substantiate this submission with reliable documents. As a rule, it will not be sufficient to make a general claim that the potential loss represents a certain percentage of turnover. As a rule, such claims must be substantiated by tax documents (tax returns and tax assessments). As the setting of a high security deposit considerably weakens the claim for injunctive relief, the considerable burden of presentation associated with this must be accepted.

District Court Munich I (LG München I), Final Judgment of May 16, 2024 – 7 O 4832/23

Download Judgment (machine translation)

>>Further Judgments

Header: LKT_AdobeStock.com