Munich I Regional Court
The 7th Civil Chamber of the Munich I Regional Court, chaired by Presiding Judge Dr. Oliver Schön and including Judges Dr. Florian Schweyer and Katalin Tözsér, has issued extensive new FRAND Guidelines dated August 13, 2026. The Guidelines summarize the Chamber’s approach in several recent SEP/FRAND proceedings, provide further clarifications, and address issues arising in proceedings without published decisions. They are intended to help parties focus their factual submissions on the issues relevant to the Chamber’s decision.
A notable procedural feature is the possibility of a “FRAND FIRST” hearing. Either party may request such a hearing, in which the discussion is confined to FRAND issues and the parties’ submissions are limited to a short brief. The Chamber considers this a means of obtaining an early, focused discussion of the parties’ respective licensing positions.
The Guidelines draw a distinction between external and internal willingness to license. External willingness is assessed in a strictly formalized manner and generally requires payment of the undisputed portion of the royalty, reflected in the implementer’s final offer, as well as supplementary security in specified circumstances. If that threshold is met, the Chamber reviews whether the SEP holder’s offer falls within the applicable FRAND range. If it does and the implementer does not accept it, the Chamber considers the implementer to lack internal willingness to license. The Guidelines also identify exceptions where the implementer has not negotiated, made no offer, or submitted an offer that cannot be regarded as serious.
On the substantive assessment, the Chamber gives priority to the analysis of comparable license agreements entered into by the patent holder for the relevant portfolio. The top-down approach primarily serves as a reasonableness check for the outcome derived from comparable agreements. However, it may also be used for an initial determination of a license rate where no established licensing practice or suitable comparable agreements exist. The Chamber further states that the determination of a reasonable FRAND rate is a legal question and cannot be resolved through court-appointed expert evidence. Party-appointed experts may nevertheless assist in explaining calculations and underlying data.
The Guidelines also address “streaming as a service.” The Chamber concludes that there is currently no established licensing practice for such services and provides a non-binding illustrative top-down analysis, including observations on subscription-based streaming models. It emphasizes that the analysis is not binding and that a case-specific assessment will depend on detailed factual submissions by the parties.
Finally, the Chamber decided against introducing a general “SAFE HARBOUR” mechanism and reiterates that the provision of security does not, by itself, prevent injunctive relief.
Taken together, the Guidelines signal a more structured and economically detailed FRAND review in Munich at the national level. They combine an early procedural route through a “FRAND FIRST” hearing with a substantive assessment centered on comparable licenses, while reserving the top-down approach for verification and, where necessary, initial rate setting. Whether the Guidelines will encourage earlier settlements or instead sharpen the parties’ disputes over comparability, data, and portfolio valuation remains to be seen. It will also be interesting to see whether, and to what extent, the UPC will draw on the Chamber’s approach in future SEP/FRAND cases.
