UPC Dusseldorf LD finds Beko and Arçelik’s slowness to declare willingness — but not absence of Dolby pledge —dispositive of FRAND defense

Context: Last month we already reported (February 4, 2026 ip fray article) that Beko and Arçelik appeared to have no FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing) defense against Dolby in a case involving a patent that reads on the Opus audio codec standard and were in for an injunction.

What’s new: This prediction has been validated. The Dusseldorf LD handed down its decision this morning, and it is an injunction. The FRAND part is surprisingly short, yet highly instructive.

Direct impact: A settlement would now be the most likely next step. Other implementers chose that path, typically by taking a license to a Vectis pool. At least with respect to FRAND, an appeal does not appear likely to yield a different outcome, given that the implementers’ antitrust-based affirmative defense failed at the second-earliest juncture and there were indications at last month’s hearing that there was no shortage of other reasons to resolve the case in Dolby’s favor.

Wider ramifications:

• You can find the court’s official headnotes (in two languages) as well as some commentary further below. In the FRAND context, the decision gives guidance on how swiftly implementers must declare an unequivocal willingness to take a FRAND license in response to an infringement notice. It addresses, without resolving the related facts here, the availability of a FRAND defense to an injunction even if the patent was not pledged to be licensed on FRAND terms. Furthermore, the rejection of the implementers’ patent exhaustion defense is noteworthy.
• Large tech companies like Google have a disdain for patent pools covering standards that are described as “royalty-free”.