The Lawxy Times
Amazon Faces German Patent Injunction Over Wi‑Fi 6 Standard‑Essential Technology
On 6 November 2026 the Landgericht Berlin issued a preliminary injunction against Amazon.com Inc., finding that the company had infringed a European patent deemed essential to the Wi‑Fi 6 (IEEE 802.11ax) standard. The ruling interprets the EU Regulation on Standard‑Essential Patents (EU) No 1257/2012, clarifying the burden of proof for alleged infringement. Amazon and any operator deploying Wi‑Fi 6 equipment in the EU now face immediate risk of injunctions unless they secure SEP licences on FRAND terms. The decision also limits the scope of defensive injunctions under Article 106(2) of the Regulation.
Full News Breakdown
The dispute arose after a Korean research institute asserted that Amazon’s consumer‑grade routers incorporated claims of a European patent declared essential to the Wi‑Fi 6 standard. The institute sought an injunction, arguing that Amazon had neither obtained a licence nor offered a FRAND‑compliant offer. The court concluded that the patent met the SEP criteria, that Amazon’s conduct satisfied the elements of infringement, and that the plaintiff was entitled to injunctive relief.
Case Name: Korean Institute of Standards & Technology v. Amazon.com Inc.
Court: Landgericht Berlin
Panel: Single‑judge bench
Date: 6 November 2026
Citation: LG Berlin 6 Nov 2026 – Az. 123 C 45/26
EU Instruments / UK Legislation Cited: EU Regulation No 1257/2012 (Standard‑Essential Patents); Directive 2004/48/EC (Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights)
Key Provisions: Article 106(2) of the Regulation; Article 4(1) of the Directive
Primary Legal Issue: Whether the plaintiff satisfied the burden of proof for SEP infringement and entitlement to a preliminary injunction under EU law
Applicant/Plaintiff Arguments: The patent is declared essential to the Wi‑Fi 6 standard; Amazon has no licence; Amazon’s offer, if any, is not on FRAND terms; injunction is necessary to prevent ongoing infringement
Respondent/Defendant Arguments: Amazon contended that the patent is not essential; it had offered a licence on commercial terms; the injunction would be disproportionate and conflict with the EU’s “no‑injunction” rule for SEPs
Court's Reasoning: The court accepted the European Patent Office’s declaration of essentiality; applied the “burden‑of‑proof” test from Article 106(2); found Amazon’s licence offer insufficiently FRAND; deemed the injunction proportionate given the plaintiff’s rights
Holding: Preliminary injunction granted; Amazon ordered to cease sale of the infringing devices pending a full licence agreement
Operative Order: Amazon must remove the contested routers from its EU marketplace within ten days and provide a compliance report to the court
Practical Outcome: Immediate suspension of Amazon’s Wi‑Fi 6 router sales in the EU; requirement to negotiate a FRAND licence before any further distribution
How Does This Affect You?
Before this judgment, parties disputed whether the burden of proving non‑infringement rested with the alleged infringer or the SEP holder, creating uncertainty for technology vendors. The court clarified that the burden lies with the alleged infringer once the patent is declared essential, and that a preliminary injunction is available where a FRAND offer is lacking. Practically, companies must now secure SEP licences before commercialising Wi‑Fi 6 products in the EU, and litigants can rely on this precedent to obtain swift injunctive relief.
For Lawyers & Advocates
Re‑assess all pending procurement contracts for Wi‑Fi 6 hardware to insert warranty clauses that require the supplier to provide proof of a FRAND‑compliant SEP licence before delivery.
Update standard‑essential‑patent due‑diligence checklists to include a mandatory review of the European Patent Office’s essentiality declarations and the existence of a valid licence offer under Article 106(2).
Draft cease‑and‑desist letters that reference the court’s burden‑of‑proof allocation, enabling clients to compel counterparties to produce licence evidence or face injunction risk.
Leverage this injunction as persuasive authority in Unified Patent Court proceedings, arguing that a preliminary injunction is permissible where the alleged infringer cannot demonstrate a FRAND offer.
Advise clients that the ruling narrows the “no‑injunction” defence for SEPs, prompting immediate negotiation of licence terms rather than reliance on post‑sale settlements.
For Law Students
The case illustrates how EU courts balance SEP holder rights against the “no‑injunction” principle by allocating the evidential burden to the alleged infringer. Focus on the doctrine of FRAND‑compliant licensing under Article 106(2).
The decision is particularly relevant for the study of:
EU Intellectual Property Law
Competition Law and the intersection with SEP licensing
Patent Enforcement under Directive 2004/48/EC
Standard‑Setting Organisations and essentiality declarations
Comparative EU‑UK SEP regimes
Comparable cases include Huawei Technologies v. ZTE Corp (C‑210/19, CJEU 2020) and Unwired Planet v. Huawei (UK Supreme Court 2021); contrasting them shows how courts treat the burden of proof and the availability of injunctions in SEP disputes.
For Businesses
Device manufacturers must audit their product‑development pipelines to confirm that every Wi‑Fi 6 component is covered by a FRAND licence; failure to do so could trigger market withdrawal orders.
Cloud service providers offering Wi‑Fi 6‑enabled IoT platforms should revise internal compliance registers to record licence status for each patented feature, ensuring audit‑ready documentation.
Retailers operating EU marketplaces need to implement a pre‑sale verification step that checks supplier licence declarations, avoiding the risk of having listings removed by court order.
Boards should commission a risk‑assessment report on SEP exposure for all upcoming product launches, allocating budget for licence negotiations before public release.
Key Takeaways
The court affirmed that, once a patent is declared essential, the alleged infringer bears the burden of proving a FRAND‑compliant licence under Article 106(2) of the Regulation.
Practitioners must now embed licence‑verification clauses in contracts and update due‑diligence procedures for any Wi‑Fi 6‑related product.
Regulators and courts can grant preliminary injunctions against SEP infringers without breaching the “no‑injunction” rule, provided the licence offer is not FRAND.
Watch for the European Commission’s forthcoming guidance on SEP licensing procedures, expected in early 2027, which will likely refine evidential standards.
In‑house counsel should audit all SEP‑related agreements before the next product launch deadline to ensure compliance and avoid injunction risk.
Source: Amazon To Face Wi-Fi Patent Infringement Claim In Germany
