Recently, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed in its final ruling the appeal lodged by Dutch telecoms operator KPN against OPPO in a patent infringement case, upholding the previous judgement of the Federal Patent Court: claim 14 of KPN’s EP 2 291 033 patent was invalid (Case No.: X ZR 103/24).

This marks the latest setback for KPN in its series of patent litigation cases against OPPO. Of the five lawsuits it has filed in Germany and at the Unified Patent Court (UPC), patents in three have already been declared invalid or found not to infringe; one is still pending, and only one—filed in early 2026—is a recent addition.

KPN (Koninklijke KPN N.V.), founded in 1989, is one of the Netherlands’ leading telecommunications operators. Listed on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange, it specialises in fixed-line networks, mobile communications, broadband and television services, whilst also holding a portfolio of essential patents relating to mobile communications standards such as LTE. In recent years, KPN has brought patent litigation against several device manufacturers, including Xiaomi, Sony and OPPO, in Germany, the Netherlands and the Unified Patent Court (UPC). The cases involving Xiaomi and Sony have since been settled, though the specific terms of the settlements have not been disclosed.

KPN had previously sued OPPO’s German sales subsidiary for infringement at the Düsseldorf Regional Court (Case No. 4b O 27/22) on the basis of patent EP 2 291 033, seeking an injunction against the sale of the relevant products in Germany. As OPPO simultaneously filed a request for invalidation with the Federal Patent Court, the Düsseldorf court ruled to stay the infringement proceedings pending the outcome of the validity dispute.

The Federal Patent Court had already ruled in the first instance that claim 14 was invalid; KPN appealed against this decision, and the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has now upheld this conclusion in its final ruling. As KPN’s infringement claims were primarily based on this claim, its original claims have lost their direct legal basis; however, as the BGH has not yet ruled on the validity of the patent’s remaining claims, KPN may still raise additional claims in subsequent proceedings.

This is not the only case in which KPN has suffered a setback in Germany. Previously, KPN had also alleged that OPPO’s 5G devices infringed patent EP 2 377 337 and applied to the Düsseldorf Regional Court for a sales ban (Case No. 4b O 44/22); however, the court found that OPPO’s devices did not fall within the scope of protection of the core 12th claim of the patent and dismissed all of KPN’s claims at first instance.

In April 2025, the Federal Patent Court upheld the validity of the patent on the basis of a narrowed scope of protection, and KPN has since appealed the first-instance judgment in the infringement case to the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf. During the proceedings, OPPO raised a FRAND compulsory licence defence; however, as the court had earlier expressed doubts regarding the existence of infringement, this defence was not fully examined on its merits.

The patent dispute between the two parties is unfolding simultaneously in multiple jurisdictions worldwide, spanning countries such as the Netherlands, China and India, and has seen three consecutive rounds of proceedings at the Unified Patent Court (UPC).

In September 2024, KPN filed its first action with the UPC’s The Hague Regional Division, alleging infringement of patent EP 2 387 844 (Case No.: UPC_CFI_502/2024);

In December of the same year, the Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office declared the patent invalid in its entirety on the grounds that it ‘exceeded the scope of the original application’, thereby rendering this action moot;

In January 2025, KPN filed a second UPC action at the Hague Division concerning patent EP 2 337 403 (Case No.: UPC_CFI_565/2024), which is currently pending;