Nokia v. Geely — UPC Mannheim Issues Landmark Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction With €50 Million Penalty in Global SEP Dispute

Background

Nokia and Geely have been locked in a global battle over Nokia’s portfolio of standard-essential patents (SEPs) covering 2G through 5G and Wi-Fi technology. Nokia filed patent infringement actions at the UPC’s Mannheim and Munich Local Divisions in July 2025, asserting European Patents EP 3,799,333 and EP 4,090,075 against multiple Geely entities.

In response, Geely launched a rate-setting proceeding at the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court in China, asking the Chinese court to determine global FRAND licensing terms for Nokia’s entire SEP portfolio. Nokia did not challenge this main proceeding. But on April 8, 2026, Geely raised the stakes: it filed a separate application in Hangzhou seeking an interim licence — effectively asking the Chinese court to order both parties into a global interim licensing agreement even before the rate-setting case concluded.

Under Chinese law, violating such an “act preservation order” can trigger fines of 1 million RMB (~€124,000) per day — and in extreme cases, imprisonment of responsible officers. Nokia pointed to the Huawei v. Conversant precedent, where China’s Supreme People’s Court had used just such a mechanism to block enforcement of a German injunction. With a Hangzhou hearing set for April 23, Nokia moved the UPC Mannheim for emergency ex parte relief.

The Court’s Holding

The Mannheim Local Division granted Nokia’s request in full, issuing what it characterized as a defensive “anti-anti-suit injunction” (AASI). The court’s reasoning broke new ground on several fronts.

Jurisdiction. The court held that an application for a Chinese interim licence constituted a threatened interference with Nokia’s patent rights enforceable at the UPC. Under UPCA Articles 31 and 32(1)(c) and Brussels I Recast Article 7(2), the court had jurisdiction because the “place of harm” — the undermining of Nokia’s ability to enforce its European patents — lay within UPC territory. Crucially, the court found that a patent’s enforceability in its designated forum is not merely a procedural convenience but an integral component of the property right itself, grounded in the UPCA, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 47), and the EU Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC).

Merits. The court found that Geely’s interim licence application in Hangzhou was functionally equivalent to an anti-suit injunction: if granted, it would give Geely a licence defence in every jurisdiction, effectively neutering Nokia’s patent infringement claims at the UPC. The court emphasized that it was not interfering with the main rate-setting proceeding in China — only blocking the interim-licence mechanism that would prejudice the UPC proceedings.

Penalty. To ensure compliance, the court set a maximum penalty of €50 million, with an additional €500,000 per day for continued non-compliance. The court justified this amount by reference to the €5 million value of each pending UPC proceeding and the sweeping scope of a potential interim licence covering Nokia’s entire 2G–5G and Wi-Fi SEP portfolio. The EU Commission was notified under Regulation 1/2003 given the competition-law implications.

Key Takeaways

• Patent enforceability is a substantive right, not just procedure. The UPC has now firmly established that a patent holder’s right to seek injunctions in its forum is part of the patent right itself — and foreign court proceedings that threaten to undermine that right can be blocked with provisional measures.
• The AASI doctrine is expanding rapidly at the UPC. Following earlier decisions in InterDigital v. Amazon (September 2025) and Nokia v. Sunmi (Munich, February 2025), the Mannheim court’s order deepens the UPC’s toolkit for countering foreign anti-suit tactics, particularly from Chinese courts.
• €50 million penalty sets a new high-water mark. The penalty amount signals that the UPC will impose severe financial consequences on parties that attempt to circumvent European patent enforcement through foreign interim-licence mechanisms.
• Defensive framing matters. The court was careful to note that its order only targets the interim-licence application, not Geely’s main rate-setting proceeding in China. This “purely defensive” characterization may shield the order from criticism that it overreaches into foreign judicial sovereignty.

Why It Matters

This decision lands at the intersection of the world’s most contentious patent-licensing battles. Chinese courts have increasingly asserted authority to set global FRAND rates — and used act-preservation orders to prevent patent holders from enforcing rights in other jurisdictions. The EU itself has challenged this practice before the WTO, arguing that Chinese rate-setting at below-FRAND levels constitutes a trade barrier.

For companies navigating SEP licensing, the message is clear: the UPC will not sit idle while foreign proceedings threaten to hollow out European patent enforcement. Implementers considering interim-licence applications in China now face the real prospect of nine-figure penalties in Europe. And for SEP holders, the UPC is rapidly becoming the forum of choice for asserting leverage in global FRAND disputes — a dramatic shift from just three years ago, when the court didn’t yet exist.