Context:
- Last week, the Landgericht München I (Munich I Regional Court) granted Broadcom a standard-essential patent (SEP) injunction against automaker Renault, disallowing the sale of its best-selling Clio and Mégane models in all of Germany (February 6, 2026 ip fray article). ip fray was first to report. Our coverage was picked up by mainstream media. Later, other media reported as well (other predominantly patent-specialized publications haven’t, at least not by the time this update is being written).
- Renault was quick to announce its intent to appeal, which we mentioned in a follow-up article on Broadcom being the world’s first trillion-dollar “patent troll”1 (February 7, 2026 ip fray article). Its market cap of approx. $1.5T is at a level with the entire European technology industry, though it’s only the 7th-most valuable U.S. tech company.
What’s new:
- As of yesterday, the Oberlandesgericht München (Munich Higher Regional Court) wasn’t in a position to confirm the pendency of an appeal and a motion to stay enforcement, but there can be delays between filing and docketing. There is no question that the appeal either has been filed or will be filed any moment now.
- Further media coverage such as by local Munich area newspaper Münchner Merkur (yesterday) quotes a Renault spokesperson as pointing out that enforcement has not begun yet and that it won’t begin unless Broadcom meets certain requirements.
How likely is that Renault avoids enforcement, short of settling?
To Read The Full Story
Continue reading your article with a Membership
Courts and counsel
Munich Higher Regional Court
6th Civil Senate (Presiding Judge: Lars Meinhardt)
Munich I Regional Court
7th Civil Chamber: Presiding Judge Dr. Oliver Schoen (“Schön” in German), Judge Katalin Tözsér, and Judge Dr. Florian Schweyer.
Counsel for parties
Broadcom is being represented by CBH’s Hannes Jacobsen and Renault by Bird & Bird’s Felix Roediger.
Counsel for intervenors
Two Renault suppliers are facing indemnification risks. Bosch is being represented by Bardehle Pagenberg’s (ip fray firm profile) Dr. Jan Boesing (“Bösing” in German), and Valeo by Hogan Lovells’s (ip fray firm profile in the making) Dr. Benjamin Schroeer (“Schröer” in German).
Unrelated to this (and to SEPs), there is litigation between those two suppliers. Valeo brought a case against Bosch in the Paris seat of the Unified Patent Court’s (UPC) Central Division, which got transferred to the Dusseldorf Local Division (see Section 2.1 of our latest UPC Roundup). In that case, Bosch is being defended by Bardehle Pagenberg’s Johannes Heselberger, and Valeo by August Debouzy’s (ip fray firm profile in the making) Lionel Martin. That squabble will not prevent them from striving for the same goals against Broadcom.
- Those are big quotes around the term “patent troll”. We obviously aren’t oblivious to the fact that Broadcom makes hardware and software products. What we mean is that some tend to accuse anyone with an active patent monetization program involving enforcement of being a “patent troll”, and there are also some such as Erich Spangenberg who aren’t even offended by the label. With respect to Renault, Broadcom is a non-practicing entity because it does not make cars. ↩︎