Introduction
When the Unified Patent Court launched in June 2023, SEP practitioners had one question that dominated every panel discussion and industry briefing: how will the UPC handle FRAND defences? Would it adopt the German Sisvel v. Haier framework? Develop its own standard? Take a more implementer-friendly approach influenced by other European jurisdictions?
In 2025, the Düsseldorf Local Division answered the question in Dolby International v. Beko Group. The FRAND defence was raised. The court assessed the defendant’s negotiation conduct. The FRAND defence was dismissed. The injunction issued. And the court explicitly adopted the Sisvel v. Haier framework established by the German Federal Court of Justice.
That outcome has a specific and significant consequence: the FRAND negotiation standard that has governed German SEP licensing for years now governs pan-European SEP licensing through the UPC. A FRAND defence that fails in Düsseldorf now fails at pan-European scale — with an injunction potentially covering all 17 UPC participating member states. For any company implementing standard essential patents and selling products in Europe, the engagement standard for every future FRAND negotiation has been set. This article breaks down what the court found, what the standard now requires, and what it means for your licensing strategy.
What Happened in Dolby v. Beko
The parties and the patents: Dolby International holds a portfolio of standard essential patents covering audio processing standards — specifically patents declared essential to standards used in consumer electronics including televisions, soundbars, and streaming devices. Beko Group, one of Europe’s largest consumer electronics and home appliance manufacturers, implements those audio standards in its products sold across European markets. Beko’s products are sold under the Beko brand and, through its parent company Arcelik, under the Grundig brand across significant European market footprint.
The FRAND defence and why it failed: Dolby sought an injunction through the UPC Düsseldorf Local Division. Beko raised a FRAND defence — arguing that Dolby was not offering a FRAND licence and that the injunction should therefore be refused. The court rejected the FRAND defence. Its finding: Beko had not engaged in good-faith negotiations as required by the Sisvel v. Haier framework. Beko failed to respond promptly to Dolby’s licensing offers, failed to make a substantive counter-offer within a reasonable timeframe, and failed to engage with the substance of the licensing conversation in a way that demonstrated genuine intent to obtain a FRAND licence.
The injunction and its scope: The injunction issued against Beko’s infringing products. Given the UPC’s pan-European jurisdiction, the injunction’s reach across UPC participating states is materially broader than a German national injunction would have been under the pre-UPC enforcement framework. The Dolby v. Beko outcome is the first demonstration that a failed FRAND defence at the UPC doesn’t just mean a German market injunction — it can mean a pan-European enforcement event for the same negotiation failure.
The Good Faith Negotiation Standard: What the UPC Now Requires
The Dolby v. Beko ruling — applying the Sisvel v. Haier framework — establishes five specific requirements that an implementer must meet to successfully raise a FRAND defence at the UPC. These aren’t aspirational guidelines. They’re the documented conduct the court will assess when deciding whether the FRAND licensing negotiation was conducted in good faith.
1. Respond to FRAND offers promptly — A delayed or non-response to a FRAND licensing offer is treated as evidence of unwillingness to licence. The court assesses not just what was communicated but when. A response that arrives months after a formal offer — or never arrives at all — fails this requirement regardless of what it says.
2. Make a counter-offer if the initial offer is considered non-FRAND — Silence or rejection without a substantive counter-offer does not meet the good faith standard. If you consider the SEP holder’s offer too high, your obligation is to respond with your own FRAND rate position — supported by comparable licence data and a reasoned explanation of your methodology. Simply saying the offer is not FRAND is not enough.
3. Disclose financial information relevant to FRAND rate calculation — FRAND royalty calculations require a royalty base. Refusing to disclose sales volumes, revenue figures, or market data relevant to the calculation is treated as failure to cooperate. This was a specific finding in Pantech v. Google in Japan as well — the pattern of refusing financial disclosure is now recognised as bad faith conduct across multiple major SEP jurisdictions.
4. Provide security for ongoing royalties during negotiations — If the product is in market while negotiations are ongoing, providing security — an escrow or equivalent arrangement for the royalties that would be owed if the negotiation ultimately settles at the SEP holder’s rate — demonstrates genuine intent to settle rather than strategic delay.
5. Document the negotiation record — The court reviews the documented record of negotiation conduct: emails, formal offers, counter-offers, meeting minutes, response timelines. The assessment isn’t just based on the parties’ characterisation of what happened — it’s based on the documentary evidence. Every communication in a European FRAND negotiation is potentially a document that a UPC judge will review.
“The Dolby v. Beko ruling makes clear that the FRAND defence is not a procedural shield that implementers can deploy at any point in litigation to block an injunction. It’s a defence that requires proof of genuine engagement — documented, timely, and substantive. Beko had the defence available to it. It didn’t meet the standard to use it.”
How the UPC’s FRAND Standard Aligns With — and Extends — German Case Law
The Dolby v. Beko ruling’s adoption of the Sisvel v. Haier framework is significant beyond the specific case outcome. It answers the jurisdictional question that practitioners had been asking since 2023.
The Sisvel v. Haier framework was established by the German Federal Court of Justice and has governed FRAND negotiations in German patent proceedings for several years. Under that framework, SEP holders must make a FRAND offer; implementers must respond seriously and promptly; the court will assess the quality of the parties’ negotiation conduct when evaluating injunction eligibility. The UPC Düsseldorf Local Division didn’t invent a new standard for Dolby v. Beko. It applied the existing German standard and explicitly confirmed its adoption.
This has two specific consequences for SEP licensing strategy:
- Companies already familiar with German FRAND requirements know the UPC standard. The practices that have been required for German SEP negotiations — prompt responses, counter-offers with comparable data, financial disclosure, security provision — are the same practices required at the UPC. If your legal team and licensing team have been conducting German FRAND negotiations properly, they are already operating to the UPC standard.
- A FRAND defence that fails in Germany will likely fail at the UPC — with pan-European consequences. This is the key escalation. Pre-UPC, a failed FRAND defence in the Düsseldorf Regional Court meant a German market injunction. Post-UPC, the same failed FRAND defence in the Düsseldorf Local Division means a potential pan-European injunction. The legal standard hasn’t changed. The geographic scope of the consequence has.
Prior to Dolby v. Beko, the Mannheim and Munich UPC Local Divisions had issued FRAND-related decisions in Panasonic v. Oppo and Huawei v. NetGear that established the doctrinal groundwork for the Düsseldorf ruling. The Dolby v. Beko decision is the first complete application of the Sisvel framework at the UPC level — the first ruling where the FRAND defence was comprehensively assessed and rejected on good faith grounds. The principles have now been applied. The standard is set.
The Pan-European Enforcement Dimension
Let’s be precise about what the geographic scope of a failed UPC FRAND defence actually means.
Before the UPC, Dolby would have needed to file separately in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Italy, and each other target jurisdiction to build a pan-European enforcement campaign. Each national proceeding would have required its own FRAND assessment under that jurisdiction’s law. The outcomes could differ across courts. The injunctions would be separate. The licensing leverage was bounded by jurisdiction.
Through the UPC, a single proceeding at the Düsseldorf Local Division can result in an injunction covering all 17 UPC participating member states. One FRAND assessment. One injunction. Pan-European commercial consequence. For Beko — a company selling products across the full European market — the practical impact of a pan-European injunction is materially greater than a German-only injunction. The commercial disruption, the supply chain implications, and the urgency of resolution are all amplified at pan-European scale.
For implementers: this means every European FRAND negotiation now needs to be treated as a pan-European risk event from the first demand. A SEP holder with UPC enforcement capability doesn’t need to file in Germany, France, and the Netherlands separately. They file once. The leverage behind their licensing demand has increased materially. And the consequences of failing to meet the good faith engagement standard have increased proportionally.
What the Dolby v. Beko Ruling Means for SEP Licensing Strategy
Here are the practical implications — for implementers first, then for SEP holders.
For Implementers: Five Things You Must Do Now
- Treat every FRAND demand as a pan-European event from day one. A demand from a SEP holder with UPC enforcement capability is not a Germany-specific or Netherlands-specific issue. It is a potential pan-European injunction risk. Structure your response accordingly from the first communication.
- Respond promptly — in writing, with substance. The court’s timeline assessment starts from the date of the SEP holder’s formal FRAND offer. A delayed response — even one that ultimately engages substantively — becomes evidence of bad faith if it arrives significantly after the offer date. Your first response to a formal FRAND offer should be substantive and timely.
- Counter-offer with data, not just a number. A counter-offer that presents a lower rate without supporting comparable licence data is unlikely to satisfy the Sisvel framework’s counter-offer requirement. The comparable licence data and FRAND rate methodology that supports your counter-offer needs to be prepared before negotiations begin, not assembled under pressure after an offer is received.
- Disclose the financial information the calculation requires. Refusing to disclose sales volumes, revenue, or market data relevant to royalty base calculation is now documented bad faith conduct — confirmed in both Dolby v. Beko (UPC) and Pantech v. Google (Japan) in 2025. Prepare your financial disclosure strategy before receiving a formal offer.
- Commission an essentiality check before entering detailed negotiations. The Dolby v. Beko ruling assessed the quality of negotiation conduct — not the essentiality of the specific patents. But knowing what proportion of the asserted portfolio is genuinely technically essential gives you a factual basis for your counter-offer and negotiation position. An essentiality check is the analytical foundation of a credible counter-offer.
For SEP Holders: How the UPC Changes Your Enforcement Leverage
The Dolby v. Beko ruling is equally significant from the SEP holder’s perspective. The UPC’s pan-European enforcement capability, combined with the Sisvel framework’s clear requirements for implementer conduct, means that:
- The licensing demand is now backed by credible pan-European injunction threat. A SEP holder filing at the UPC Düsseldorf Local Division isn’t threatening a German market injunction — they’re threatening a pan-European injunction. That changes the commercial urgency of the implementer’s response.
- Implementer bad faith is now clearly defined and assessable. The Sisvel framework gives SEP holders a documented checklist of implementer conduct they can track and present to the court. Non-response, lack of counter-offer, refusal of financial disclosure — each is documented bad faith under the standard the Dolby v. Beko ruling confirmed.
- The European licensing campaign is now a single-forum strategy. Pre-UPC, a pan-European SEP licensing campaign required coordinated multi-jurisdiction litigation. The UPC provides a single forum for pan-European enforcement. The strategic and cost efficiency of European SEP assertion has materially improved for rights holders.
How Our SEP Analysis Service Supports UPC FRAND Negotiations
Our SEP analysis service covers exactly what the Dolby v. Beko ruling requires from both sides of a UPC FRAND negotiation.
For implementers facing FRAND demands from UPC-active SEP holders: we provide essentiality analysis for declared SEP portfolios to establish the actual proportion of technically essential patents in the asserted pool, landscape mapping for standards enforced across UPC participating states, FRAND rate benchmarking using comparable European licence data that meets the evidential standards the UPC applies, and claim chart review to verify whether asserted patents read on the standard as your specific product implements it. The output gives you the analytical foundation for a documented, good-faith counter-offer — the standard Dolby v. Beko requires.
For SEP holders planning European licensing campaigns through the UPC: we provide landscape analysis identifying which implementers are most likely practicing your declared portfolio, essentiality analysis confirming the strongest patents in your assertion set, and claim chart preparation to support a formal FRAND offer with technical specificity. The UPC’s first FRAND ruling demonstrates that the quality of both the offer and the response matters. We build the analytical infrastructure on both sides.
Received a FRAND demand from a SEP holder with UPC enforcement capability? The Dolby v. Beko ruling sets the engagement standard. Our SEP analysis service provides the essentiality analysis, comparable licence data, and claim chart review that a documented, good-faith counter-offer requires. → Contact Us
Conclusion: The Takeaway
The UPC’s first FRAND decision has answered the question that practitioners had since 2023. The court applies the Sisvel v. Haier framework. Good faith is defined by documented, timely, substantive conduct — not by the absence of a refusal to licence. Beko had the FRAND defence available to it. It didn’t meet the standard to use it.
For any company implementing standards and selling products across Europe, Dolby v. Beko sets the engagement standard for every FRAND negotiation from here. The geographic stakes are pan-European. The conduct requirements are defined. The consequences of failing to meet them — a potential injunction covering 17 EU member states from a single UPC proceeding — are the highest they have ever been in European SEP litigation history.
The FRAND defence exists. But it requires the preparation to use it properly — before the demand arrives, not in response to it.
