Nokia launches actions against Geely at the UPC and Regional Court Munich

Nokia has initiated a fresh round of lawsuits over SEPs at the Unified Patent Court and Munich Regional Court. The Finnish mobile communications company is suing Chinese car manufacturer Geely over four patents relevant to 4G and 5G standards used in connected cars.

On 18 July Nokia filed claims against Geely. At the UPC, Nokia has filed claims at the Munich local division regarding EP 4 090 075 and the local division Mannheim over EP 3 799 333. The latter patent is from the same patent family as EP 2 981 103 and EP 3 220 562, which Nokia has defended in previous litigation against Oppo and Vivo.

The Finnish company has also launched two national actions at Munich Regional Court concerning EP 3 832 976 and EP 3 566 488. All patents are essential to the 4G and 5G standards and used in connected cars.

Geely, headquartered in Hangzhou, China, owns several automotive brands including Volvo, Panda and Polestar. The company is also part of a joint venture with Mercedes-Benz for production of the Smart brand.

Connected car wars reignite

This latest move signals a resurgence in the connected car patent wars. For years, disputes over SEPs between Nokia and the Avanci patent pool against various car manufacturers and suppliers kept German courts busy, until defendants gradually took licences.

One of the longest and most fiercely fought battles over connected car SEPs ended in mid-2021 when Daimler and Nokia agreed on a licensing deal. Further agreements followed between the Avanci patent pool and European manufacturers such as BMW, Volkswagen, and Stellantis, as well as Asian brands including Nissan, Hyundai, Kia, and US manufacturer General Motors.

The dispute with Daimler centred on whether suppliers or car makers themselves should take licences. Daimler argued that manufacturers of connectivity modules, i.e. its Tier 1 suppliers, should conclude the licence with Avanci, rather than the car manufacturers. The opposing parties took their dispute all the way to the CJEU. Düsseldorf Regional Court asked the European court to clarify whether there is an obligation for priority licensing of suppliers. However, the parties settled before the CJEU issued a definitive answer.

Unlike BMW, VW and other car manufacturers, Daimler did not take an Avanci licence. Instead, it signed individual agreements with three pool members: Sharp, Conversant, and Nokia. However, Daimler’s suppliers such as TomTom, Burry and Continental were not part of the deal. Nullity proceedings are still pending at the German Federal Court of Justice.