Context: Chinese auto conglomerate Geely owns brands that are Avanci 5G-licensed (May 8, 2024 ip fray article on Volvo and Polestar), but it also has brands such Lynk and Zeekr that are not. In the summer, Nokia brought 5G enforcement actions against some unlicensed Geely brands (July 22, 2025 ip fray article).
What’s new: Sun Patent Trust (SPT) is enforcing EP2618514 (“Terminal device and retransmission control method”), a former Panasonic patent, against Geely brands Lynk, Zeekr, Lotus, and smart (a 50/50 joint venture between Geely and Mercedes) in the Unified Patent Court’s (UPC) Hamburg Local Division (LD).
Direct impact: While Nokia’s UPC enforcement actions are already halfway to adjudication, SPT’s additional involvement ups the pressure on Geely. Incomplete licensing within a group didn’t work out for Volkswagen, and taking one license at a time is possible, but after a few such deals Mercedes (then named Daimler) in 2021 opted for an Avanci one-stop shop solution.
Wider ramifications:
- From Nokia, automakers need more than a cellular standard-essential patent (SEP) license. Nokia also holds non-cellular wireless patents that are relevant, and Geely’s joint-venture partner Mercedes recognized this much by taking a license (November 19, 2025 ip fray article). Those other Nokia patents are not available through Avanci.
- As discussed below, Bardehle Pagenberg (ip fray firm profile with numerous achievements) has now become the first law firm to have acted on both the licensor and licensee sides of disputes involving patents available through Avanci. That makes Bardehle the Toyota among law firms, not in terms of brand image but because Toyota was the first automaker to become an Avanci licensor in addition to being a licensee (October 10, 2025 ip fray article).
- Last week we published a podcast interview with Avanci Vehicle President Laurie Fitzgerald discussing many topics including China (December 4, 2025 ip fray article).
Court and counsel
Panel: Presiding Judge Sabine Klepsch, Judge Dr. Stefan Schilling and Judge Petri Rinkinen (Helsinki, Finland).
Counsel for SPT: Bardehle Pagenberg’s Hamburg-based “patent pool tag team”, Dr. Volkmar Henke and Dr. Tilman Mueller (“Müller” in German). As mentioned above, Bardehle is now the first law firm to have represented both the licensor and the licensee side of Avanci in cellular SEP cases. Prior to its representation of SPT against Geely, the firm worked for automakers and their suppliers in similar contexts:
- In the Nokia v. Daimler dispute (2019-2021), two different (and Munich-based) Bardehle teams represented Mercedes suppliers Bosch and TomTom.
- Then-Bardehle partner Professor Peter Chrocziel (who has since set up Chrocziel Legal, a firm focused on advice, such as in connection with licensing negotiation groups (LNGs), as opposed to litigation) worked for Volkswagen and organized a meeting of in-house and outside counsel from multiple major car makers and suppliers in what was probably an early milestone of the Automotive LNG project.
- BMW was the first automaker to take an Avanci license, and among the very first to license Avanci 5G. Therefore, BMW never got sued by an Avanci licensor over cellular SEPs. Were that to happen in the future, the first lawyer BMW would talk to is Professor Tilman Mueller-Stoy (“Müller-Stoy”).
This new case is not the first one for Bardehle’s Hamburg-based SEP experts to represent SPT. They already did so in connection with video patents (March 5, 2025 ip fray article).
Geely is being represented by Hogan Lovells (lead counsel: Dr. Henrik Lehment). In SEP cases, Hogan Lovells is consistently on the side of (net) licensees.
Information on law firm profiles
Both Bardehle Pagenberg and Hogan Lovells are among the already more than 20 law firms who have an ip fray premium membership. That means full access to all of our content and a firm profile such as Bardehle’s (the one for Hogan Lovells is in the works). Achievements such as having obtained preliminary injunctions or defended against certain types of claims are listed not only on the profile pages, but they will also appear very soon in our most-recent-first achievement lists. Internally we track all achievements, but only those of our members will be listed.
Our approach to crediting law firms for their efforts on behalf of clients and contributions to the development of the law is new, and it is admittedly more labor-intensive than such opaque and subjective (if not arbitrary) systems as assigning a number of stars or conducting questionnaire-based interviews with so-called referees. Knowing how busy the major firms are, it may not come as a surprise that we have experienced delays despite strong initial market acceptance. But it is one of our priority projects now, and we should be able to show you a first version of the achievement lists (one set of lists for UPC and one for SEP cases) later this week.