Context:
- Last summer, two cellular standard-essential patent (SEP) holders whose patents are available through Avanci Vehicle sued truck maker PACCAR: Acer and Longhorn affiliate L2 Mobile Technologies (July 19, 2025 ip fray article).
- The Munich I Regional Court’s 7th Civil Chamber was supposed to hold an Acer v. DAF (DAF is one of PACCAR’s brands, and its most important European one) trial tomorrow (April 16, 2026). The trial appeared on this week’s official hearing list a few days ago. It was listed as a damages case, which is the form in which it had originally been filed, but various similar cases started on the same basis and prayers for injunctive relief were thrown in later.
What’s new: We have found out that the Munich trial has been canceled on short notice. Acer has withdrawn the complaint.
Direct impact: The only plausible explanation is a settlement, which makes it almost 100% certain that PACCER opted for an Avanci license, knowing that a multiplicity of bilateral licenses
Wider ramifications:
- The Munich I Regional Court is a forum that drives settlements.
- So far, no automotive company has achieved anything other than wasting time and money by defending itself against cellular SEP enforcement.
- For Acer, it’s preferable not to have to litigate this case in which it is on the asserting side. Acer is primarily a defendant and has recently been slapped with a couple of video patent injunctions by the same court (March 26, 2026 ip fray article).
- PACCAR has to defend against cases brought in the Unified Patent Court’s (UPC) Nordic-Baltic Regional Division (NBRD) by a Volkswagen Group company (February 24, 2026 ip fray article).
- The apparent settlement comes less than two weeks before the UK Supreme Court’s (UKSC) Tesla v. Interdigital & Avanci hearing. Tesla is placing a bet on UK judicial imperialism, but the tide has turned and those tactics are not going to bear fruit. As we explained yesterday, various major Avanci licensors are Chinese companies, so Tesla would violate new Chinese regulations by leveraging the UK to impose worldwide patent license agreements on Avanci’s licensors (April 14, 2026 ip fray article).
Confidential treatment of basic licensing history denied in E.D. Tex.
Last week, Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas denied a PACCAR motion requesting confidential treatment of certain passages of Acer’s U.S. complaint that merely stated at what points certain efforts had been made to get PACCAR to the negotiating table:
By the time this article went live, the U.S. case had not been withdrawn yet, but we expect this to happen shortly.
Court and counsel
Landgericht München I, 7. Zivilkammer (Munich I Regional Court, 7th Civil Chamber): Presiding Judge Dr. Oliver Schoen (“Schön”) (March 30, 2026 ip fray interview)), Judge Katalin Tözsér, and Judge Dr. Florian Schweyer.
Acer was represented by Fieldfisher Germany attorneys-at-law Benjamin Grzimek and Dr. Joern Peters (“Jörn” in German), both of whom also litigated SEPs against Chinese car maker BYD, and df-mp (ip fray firm profile) patent attorneys Dr. Dominik Ho and Ben Flocke. These are the attorneys we listed after the filing of the complaint, and the public hearing list did not indicate a change of counsel.