Avanci licensor Sol IP sues Chinese automaker BYD in Munich over 4G SEPs

Context: Last month, Avanci responded to a Chinese advocacy initiative concerning its standard-essential patent (SEP) license fees. So far, no Chinese Avanci licensee has been officially anounced.

What’s new: We have found out that Sol IP, a SEP holder that is one of Avanci’s numerous licensors, filed two patent infringement complaints against Chinese automaker BYD — a company that has in a matter of years reached an annual sales volume of most recently 5.5 million cars — with the Landgericht München I (Munich I Regional Court). The cases have been assigned to the Seventh Civil Chamber (Presiding Judge: Dr. Oliver Schoen (“Schön” in German)). For now, Sol IP is merely requesting a finding of infringement and a declaration that it is entitled to damages (which would have to be determined in a subsequent proceeding after BYD provides an accounting). Separately from this, we have learned from our recent interactions with Chinese sources that at least one (unnamed) Chinese car maker has already taken an Avanci license.

Direct impact: This is the first-ever enforcement effort by an Avanci licensor against a Chinese car maker, which is unusual given the fact that not a single Chinese car maker has so far been officially listed as an Avanci licensee while virtually all automakers outside of China and India are known to be licensed. The value of either dispute is estimated at € 300K (approximately US$315K). The remedies formally requested at this stage are purely monetary, but either complaint contains a passage according to which Sol IP reserves the right to seek a recall and the destruction of infringing goods. They can seek an injunction (sales ban) anytime they want, too, and it would not even make sense to seek a recall and the destruction of infringing goods without demanding that no further infringements occur.

Wider ramifications: In the past, when one Avanci licensor sued, others followed sooner or later unless a settlement was reached. Sol IP’s two Munich warning shots may also convince other Chinese car makers that it is preferable to take a one-stop shop pool license or bilateral licenses. For example, Nokia (which is also an Avanci licensor) has announced two bilateral license agreements with (unnamed) Chinese car makers.

The formal plaintiff is Sol IP, LLC, an entity based in the U.S. state of Virgina, but with a strong Korean connection. The defendant is BYD Europe B.V. of Hoofddorp, Netherlands.

These are the two patents-in-suit and related case numbers:

Case no. 7 O 1597/25: EP2575281 (“Carrier aggregation in wireless communication system”; carrier aggregation means that multiple frequency ranges are assigned to the same network operator in order to have more total bandwidth available)

Case no. 7 O 1583/25: EP2624516 (“Method and apparatus for transmitting ACK/NACK”; “ack” is short for “acknowledgment” (confirming correct receipt) while “nack” means “no acknowledgment” (an error))

Both complaints were filed on February 7, 2025.

At this point there are no FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing issues. It is formally just about damages for past infringement. Also, the fact that no one ever heard again about an inquiry by the Chinese State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) into Avanci’s business terms suggest that there are no antitrust concerns.

Avanci has already signed up many 5G licensees  but apparently some don’t even have a 4G license yet.

Prior to this action, there had not been any SEP enforcement by Avanci licensors against a car maker (at least nothing that would have become known anywhere) in years.

The Munich I Regional Court’s Seventh Civil Chamber is a rocket docket for patent infringement matters. It could be that these two cases will still be scheduled for a 2025 trial. And sometimes that panel rules straight from the bench at the end of trial.

In German national court proceedings it is possible to amend the complaint at any stage for the purpose of seeking an injunction. Theoretically one can even do so on appeal. By contrast, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) would require a plaintiff to bring a new case over the same patent in order to keep the schedule for the original case.