In March 2026, Finnish mobile phone manufacturer HMD Global Oy (hereinafter “HMD”) formally filed a constitutional appeal with the German Federal Constitutional Court regarding its standard-essential patent (SEP) dispute with VoiceAge, requesting a review and reversal of the unfavorable final judgment previously issued by the German Federal Court of Justice. This long-standing dispute over the EVS voice standard has escalated from a standard patent infringement case into a constitutional-level dispute involving the application of EU law, fundamental rights, and competition policy.

VoiceAge is a Canadian voice coding technology company specializing in the research and development of low-bitrate voice and audio compression technologies. It holds a large number of core patents for high-definition voice technologies such as ACELP and EVS, and is a major contributor to international telecommunications standards such as 3GPP and ITU. Its technologies are widely used in mobile devices and communication networks worldwide. HMD Global is a consumer electronics company established in Espoo, Finland, in 2016. Founded by former Nokia executives and holding the exclusive global brand license for Nokia phones and tablets, the company specializes in Android smartphones, classic feature phones, and mobile accessories. It has established a strong presence in global emerging markets and among mass-market consumers through its pure Android system, durable quality, and high cost-effectiveness.

This case stems from VoiceAge’s claim that it holds multiple standard-essential patents related to the EVS (Enhanced Voice Services) standard, alleging that HMD has implemented the relevant technology in its mobile phone products without a license. The parties have engaged in multiple rounds of litigation in Germany since 2019, with the core dispute centered on FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) licensing negotiations—specifically, whether HMD is a bona fide licensee, whether it has a genuine intention to accept a license, and the scope of the SEP holder’s licensing obligations.

In January 2026, the German Federal Court of Justice issued a final ruling on the case, upholding the injunction previously issued by the Munich Higher Regional Court against HMD. The court found that HMD had not demonstrated a consistent and explicit willingness to accept a license during the negotiations, thereby classifying it as a “non-bona fide licensee,” and rejected its FRAND defense. During the proceedings, the European Commission intervened as amicus curiae, recommending that the German Federal Court of Justice refer key issues concerning the interpretation of EU law to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), but this recommendation was not adopted.

Following its defeat in the final appeal, HMD filed a constitutional complaint. According to its public statement, its core argument is that the Federal Court of Justice’s refusal to refer the issue of the application of EU FRAND law to the European Court of Justice deprived it of its constitutional right to a judgment by a competent court, and that the dispute over the interpretation of relevant EU law directly affects the fairness of licensing and legal certainty in the European technology market. HMD maintains that it has consistently conducted licensing negotiations in good faith and disagrees with the court’s finding that it “lacked good faith in seeking a license.”

Industry observers note that the German Federal Constitutional Court sets an extremely high threshold for accepting constitutional complaints, and previous similar FRAND-related complaints have largely been dismissed.