To Read The Full Story
Continue reading your article with a Membership
In a statement today, ip fray‘s Florian Mueller said:
“In any other patent case, ‘Hail Mary’ or ‘long shot’ would be euphemisms for a constitutional complaint. In this case, the situation is slightly more nuanced. The Federal Court of Justice said in its decision that there was only one way to interpret the Huawei v. ZTE steps, which is that the order of the court’s analysis doesn’t matter. The Federal Court of Justice pointed to a common understanding by different Europe-based courts, including two divisions of the Unified Patent Court. Even if one agreed that various European courts had all reached the same conclusion, it is counterintuitive to say that a sequence of steps cannot possibly be interpreted as a strict sequence.
The fact that the European Commission supported the request lends it some extra weight. The Commission is neither a lawmaker nor a court, but it is the EU’s Guardian of the Treaty. At least politically and psychologically, the Commission’s involvement will give the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany pause. Whether that will result in a reversal is, however, doubtful. The odds are long against HMD’s petition, but I believe its chances of success are at least 10%.”
Counsel
VoiceAge EVS is being represented by Wildanger’s (ip fray firm profile) Peter-Michael Weisse and Jasper Meyer zu Riemsloh.
HMD is being represented by Hoyng Rohk Monegier (ip fray firm profile) Lars Baum and Joscha Torweihe; Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton’s Julian Sanner and Philipp Kirst; and Hogan Lovells’s (ip fray firm profile) Dr. Andreas von Falck and Oliver Baecker (“Bäcker” in German).