Munich court consolidates FRAND framework for SEP licensing disputes

Context:

• The Munich I Regional Court’s 7th Civil Chamber has developed its approach to SEP/FRAND disputes across a series of decisions, including ASUS I, ASUS II (February 3, 2026 ip fray article), Renault, and ZTE v. Samsung (May 6, 2026 ip fray article). Those rulings addressed issues including licensing willingness, the treatment of SEP-holder offers and royalty assessment, but the court’s approach was spread across separate judgments and extensive headnotes. The new guidelines bring that body of reasoning together and are intended to help parties identify the issues the chamber considers decisive in future cases.
• The guidelines also address the Avanci 5G pool and video streaming royalties. For streaming services, the chamber considers a top-down approach appropriate in the absence of an established licensing practice and derives indicative monthly aggregate royalty burdens of €0.49 to €1.05 per subscriber, depending on the service and subscription tier. (August 17, 2026 ip fray article)

What’s new: The guidelines set out a consolidated roadmap for how the chamber will assess FRAND compliance in practice. They formalize the distinction between “outer” and “inner” willingness to grant or take a license on FRAND terms, specify the payment and security steps an implementer may need to take before obtaining substantive review of the SEP holder’s offer, and explain how the court will determine whether that offer falls within the permissible FRAND range. 

Direct impact: Parties litigating SEP cases in Munich, or considering the venue for new filings, have clearer guidance now on what the 7th Civil Chamber expects from each side. Implementers must demonstrate “outer” willingness before obtaining substantive review of the SEP holder’s offer, including through payment of the undisputed royalty and, where required, additional security. The court will then assess whether the SEP holder’s operative offer falls within the FRAND range. 

Wider ramifications: The guidelines could make Munich an even more predictable forum for SEP litigation by turning licensing willingness and FRAND review into a more structured sequence. At the same time, the framework raises the practical stakes for both sides: implementers face clearer financial conditions before obtaining substantive scrutiny of the licensor’s terms, while SEP holders can expect closer examination of whether their ultimate offer is supported by comparable licenses or another defensible valuation method.