KIANEWS 
Finnish company HMD Global has launched a new HMD Fuse smartphone aimed specifically at children. According to the company, it is the world's first smartphone that prevents children from filming, broadcasting or viewing nude and sexually explicit content, even while streaming.
Federal Court hears FRAND appeal in VoiceAge v. HMD case - HMD statement on German Federal Court press release 021/2026
29. 01. 2026 Thursday / By: Robert Denes / Business / Exact time: BST / Print this page
The German Federal Court is closely examining the new FRAND approach of the Higher Regional Court in Munich. The Supreme Court’s decision in VoiceAge v. HMD has far-reaching consequences for European FRAND law. The EU Commission has intervened in the proceedings again. Mathieu Klos, a patent correspondent from Juvatist, is also present at the hearing.
After five years, FRAND is back on the agenda in Karlsruhe. The city is home to the Federal Court, Germany’s highest civil court and the final instance for patent proceedings. In 2020 and 2021, the court interpreted the CJEU’s interpretation of European FRAND case law in the Huawei v. ZTE case with two judgments, Sisvel v. Haier I and II.
Yesterday, the court heard its next FRAND case in the case of VoiceAge vs HMD regarding the EVS speech coding patent EP 2 102 619 (case ID: KZR 10/25).
Previously, the Munich Higher Regional Court, headed by Presiding Judge Lars Meinhardt, found that HMD had infringed VoiceAge’s EP 619 and was not a voluntary licensee (case ID: 6 U 3824/22 Kart).
The Munich Regional Court also found that HMD did not want to be licensed and ordered HMD to cease providing the service (case ID: 7 O 14091/19).
"HMD's statement on the German Federal Court's press release 021/2026: HMD notes with concern that the German Federal Court of Justice (“FCJ”) dismissed HMD's appeal on January 27, 2026, and declined to refer key questions concerning patent holders' obligations to grant licenses on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (“FRAND”) to the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”). The European Commission expressly urged referral of these questions, consistent with HMD's position that the ECJ, as the competent court to interpret EU law, should provide authoritative guidance to ensure uniform application of EU law across the European Union. HMD also disagrees with the FCJ's statement that it showed "no serious interest" in obtaining a FRAND license. This assessment does not reflect HMD's documented continuing good‑faith negotiation efforts.
While HMD remains willing to secure a FRAND license from VoiceAgeEVS, HMD continues to advocate for a balanced FRAND framework that fosters innovation, preserves competition, and ensures consumer choice and fair market access for all industry participants in Germany, the European Union and globally. HMD will carefully evaluate next steps based on a detailed review of the FCJ's judgment grounds."
HMD not only appealed to the Munich Higher Regional Court, but also appealed to the Federal Court in 2025. Given the fundamental importance of the FRAND-related issues, the Higher Regional Court of the West granted HMD permission to appeal to the Federal Court, but only in the FRAND case.
The case is therefore being heard today by the Competition Senate, which is presided over by Presiding Judge Stefanie Roloff. It is composed of judges from the various senates of the court. Like Roloff, Jan Tolkmitt, Ulrike Picker, Carmen Vogt-Beheim, Ulrike Holzinger and Mathias Kochendörfer come from the 13th Civil Senate, which is responsible for energy, public procurement and competition law, among other things. Angelika Allgayer comes from the 1st Criminal Senate. Ulrike Pastohr is also active in several other senates in addition to the Antitrust Senate.
The only designated patent judge in... the panel is Hermann Deichfuß from the 10th Civil Senate, which is responsible for patent cases. HMD’s lawyers are now trying to convince the judges that their client is a willing licensee. This would mean that the Higher Regional Court’s order would have to be quashed and the proceedings would likely have to be reopened. To do this, HMD’s lawyers would have to convince the judges that the Munich Higher Regional Court’s FRAND case law does not correspond to the spirit of the so-called FRAND dance of Huawei vs ZTE. Over the years, the VoiceAge vs. HMD dispute has gained significant importance for SEP and FRAND law in Germany. In April 2024, the EU Commission intervened for the first time by submitting an amicus curiae brief. The Commission expressed its dissatisfaction with the current case law of the Munich Regional Court. According to previous case law, which focuses primarily on the conduct of potential licensees, a patent user is almost always considered to be non-reluctant, especially before the Munich Regional Court. In November 2024, the 6th Civil Senate of the Munich Higher Court issued a legal notice introducing a new approach to the willingness of licensees. The Munich Higher Court of Appeal stated that it would examine the license offer of the patent owner more closely. However, the enforcer only meets the requirement of "continuous willingness to take a license" if it provides reasonable security, for example by means of a bank guarantee. The 6th Civil Senate essentially confirmed this new FRAND doctrine in its judgment of February 2025. However, many enforcers, such as HMD, are of the opinion that this no longer meets the CJEU test, as the Higher Regional Court prefers the last step of the FRAND dance. In addition, the pre-emptive deposit of the amount of the SEP owner's offer is a major obstacle for enforcers. The Federal Court judges are also examining whether the Munich approach is consistent with their 2020 and 2021 Sisvel vs Haier case law. If so, experts expect further clarification from the court. Experts believe that the Federal Court may also refer the case to the CJEU. Some even hope for this outcome, as several aspects of the FRAND and SEP procedures need to be clarified. According to JUVE Patent Sources, the EU Commission has sent a second amicus curiae brief to the Federal Court. It is not publicly available, but it contains essentially the same arguments as the first one. The fact that the EU Commission intervened for the second time in this case is whether the Federal Court judges are actually referring the case to the CJEU. The highest German civil court only makes referrals to the CJEU in exceptional cases. In all patent cases, the case has recently come from regional or higher courts. Both opponents have brought in two of the most renowned professional IP lawyers for the Federal Court case. Christian Rohnke represents VoiceAge. Rainer Hall from Karlsruhe-based Hall & Quast represents HMD. The lawyers from the previous cases will also accompany them.