Munich Regional Court I Grants Avago Injunction Against Renault After Calculating a FRAND Rate

On 5 February 2026, the Munich Regional Court I (Landgericht München I, 7th Civil Chamber) issued a significant decision in Avago v. Renault, granting an injunction after independently assessing whether Avago’s licensing offer for a standard‑essential patent (SEP) was FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non‑discriminatory). The ruling reinforces Munich as Germany‘s current top venue for SEP/FRAND litigation.

Background of the Dispute

The case concerns European Patent EP 1903733, owned by Avago (Broadcom), which the court found essential to the IEEE Ethernet standard and infringed by Renault’s navigation and telematics units installed in certain vehicle models, at least including the Renault Clio and Mégane.

Following an oral hearing on 5 February 2026, the court announced its decision from the bench and issued written reasons two weeks thereafter—continuing a practice of expedited decision‑making that has become quite characteristic of the 7th Civil Chamber.

Injunction and Enforcement Measures

The court granted Avago a sales injunction in Germany against the infringing vehicle models. In addition, the judgment provides for recall and destruction of infringing products, subject to Avago posting substantial security—reportedly €7.5 million for the injunction and a further €10 million covering recall and destruction measures if Avago elects to enforce the decision provisionally pending appeal.

Renault filed an immediate appeal, underscoring both the commercial impact of the injunction and the broader legal significance of the decision for SEP disputes in the automotive industry.

Willingness to License

The decision further refines the court’s FRAND framework by distinguishing between an implementer’s “external” and its “internal” willingness to take a license. According to the court, an implementer demonstrates external willingness by engaging constructively in negotiations and, in particular, by paying an undisputed amount corresponding to its own last licensing offer, thereby avoiding a hold‑out strategy.

While Renault was found to have met this threshold of external willingness, the court held that this did not prevent the grant of an injunction once Avago’s offer was found to be FRAND. In other words, willingness alone does not immunize an implementer from injunctive relief where the SEP holder’s licensing terms are judicially confirmed as FRAND. Internal willingness to license is only given if the FRAND offer that is within a permissible framework is accepted by the implementer.

Calculating FRAND Rate

The most notable aspect of the ruling is the court’s active calculation of a FRAND rate. The Munich court went beyond assessing whether an offer was “clearly non‑FRAND” and instead derived an exemplary FRAND license rate based on comparable bilateral license agreements, rather than relying on pool licenses or abstract valuation models.

Consistent with its recent FRAND case law, the court emphasized that real‑world comparable licenses are the most reliable indicators of market value. Outliers were excluded, and the remaining agreements were used to define a FRAND corridor, within which Avago’s royalty demand fell. The court therefore concluded that Avago’s final offer was within the FRAND range, defeating Renault’s FRAND defense.

Significance for Automotive Sector

This ruling has broader implications beyond the immediate parties. First, it underscores Munich’s role as the currently leading national venue for SEP/FRAND litigation, even in technically complex and economically sensitive industries such as automotive manufacturing. Second, it highlights the growing importance of non‑cellular standards, such as Ethernet, which are increasingly embedded in modern vehicles but lack the established pool licensing structures familiar from cellular SEPs.

The decision may therefore increase pressure on automotive OEMs and their suppliers to secure licenses early for non‑cellular SEPs or face the risk of injunctions backed by court‑determined FRAND benchmarks.

Outlook

With an appeal pending and parallel proceedings reportedly underway in other forums and against further OEMs, including the Unified Patent Court, this decision is unlikely to be the final word on communication‑related SEPs in the automotive sector. Nonetheless, the judgment provides a clear signal: the Munich Regional Court I is prepared not only to police FRAND conduct but to set concrete FRAND parameters—and to grant injunctions when those parameters are met.