Local division Munich grants injunction over Netgear’s Wi-Fi 6 routers

In another important FRAND ruling from the UPC, the Munich local division has ruled Netgear may no longer sell Wi-Fi-6-capable routers in six important UPC countries. Now, all eyes are on California where a US court will soon rule on an ASI application by Netgear against injunctions from Europe and China.

 

The Munich local division’s decision has far-reaching consequences. Netgear is now banned from selling Wi-Fi-6-capable routers in Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, and Sweden. These countries are considered important markets in Europe. However, for the judgment to take effect, Huawei still has to execute it by posting a security (case ID: UPC_CFI_9/2023). Netgear can also launch an appeal at the UPC Court of Appeal.

 

The 1st panel of the Munich local division under presiding judge Matthias Zigann ruled today that Netgear’s routers infringe Huawei’s EP 3 611 989. The patent protects a method and apparatus for transmitting wireless area network information. Essentially, the dispute concerns signal transmissions in Wi-Fi 6 routers.

 

The panel also included the second permanent judge Tobias Pichlmaier, Dutch judge Edger Brinkman and technically qualified judge Patrice Vidon. The latter also practises as patent attorney in his own firm. All three legally qualified judges extensive experience with SEP and FRAND cases.

 

The judges ruled not only that Netgear infringed EP 989 but also decided to reject Netgear’s counterclaim for revocation and FRAND defence. But Huawei did not take the full win. The judges excluded some Netgear routers that had certain Qualcomm modems installed from the decision due to the exhaustion issue. However, this only applies for a specified period, as the court does not disclose the judgment in more detail. Huawei can appeal against this part of the judgment.

 

 

Huawei’s lawsuits against Netgear were part of a large-scale campaign, whereby Huawei has tried to enforce its Wi-Fi 6 patents against several users since 2022. In addition to Netgear this included FrtizBox manufacturer AVM, Amazon and car manufacturer Stellantis.

 

AVM, Amazon and Stellantis had previously reached a settlement with Huawei in the Wi-Fi 6 dispute, meaning Netgear is the only remaning company of the four original defendants.

 

In July 2023 and January 2024, Huawei increased the pressure on Netgear with two UPC lawsuits (ACT_18917/2023 and ACT_459771/2023) over EP 3 678 321 and EP 989. The Munich local division heared the case on the latter patent on 18 and 19 June.

 

Cases between Huawei and Netgear are also pending with the Munich Regional Court and the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf. Netgear also filed claims for revocation against various Huawei patents with the German Federal Patent Court. The Federal Patent Court recently upheld Huawei’s EP 3 337 077, which was the subject of a lawsuit against AVM at the Regional Court Munich. Huawei also went to court in China.

 

 

Netgear defended itself against Hauwei’s lawsuits early on, going on the offensive in the US. In January 2024, Netgear sued Huawei at the California Federal Court, claiming the Chinese tech giant broke US antitrust laws by refusing to license its patents on reasonable terms. Netgear accuses Huawei of fraud, racketeering, and other offences for allegedly withholding patent licences for technology that Netgear’s routers require in order to comply with the international Wi-Fi networking standards.

 

Recently Netgear also filed a motion with the same US court (case ID: 2:24-cv-00824-AB-AJRx). It requested the court enjoin Huawei from seeking or enforcing injunctions obtained through proceedings in foreign courts, which would enjoin the manufacturing or sale of Netgear Wi-Fi-capable products based on SEPs that are subject to the worldwide licensing claims filed by Netgear at the California Federal Court. Netgear requested the court set an interim licence. The court will hear the case at the end of January 2024.

 

 

The application is probably primarily directed against today’s ruling by the UPC, which, according to observers, was already apparent at an early stage. It is only the UPC’s third ruling on an SEP. The Munich local division published its first SEP ruling in September, when it found Belkin had infringed a patent for a wireless charging standard from Philips. In contrast to the dispute between Huawei and Netgear, however, this did not concern FRAND aspects.

 

Mannheim local division handed down the first landmark ruling on FRAND a month later in the dispute between Panasonic and Oppo. It had attracted much attention due to the UK High Court having also dealt with a global FRAND rate in the dispute. This is not the case in Huawei vs Netgear case. Oppo and Panasonic have agreed on a licence in the meantime but the courts have not yet formally concluded the patent proceedings.