In the ongoing complex litigation between Optis Cellular Technology LLC and Apple Inc., the Court of Appeal ([2022] EWCA Civ 1411) has upheld the High Court’s findings that implementers of standard-essential patents (SEPs) cannot refuse to accept a FRAND license and continue activities in the meantime which constitute infringement: that party must commit to accept a court-determined license if it wishes to avoid an injunction.
This article was first published in November 2022 by The Patent Lawyer
In the ongoing complex litigation between Optis Cellular Technology LLC and Apple Inc., the Court of Appeal ([2022] EWCA Civ 1411) has upheld the High Court’s findings that implementers of standard-essential patents (SEPs) cannot refuse to accept a FRAND license and continue activities in the meantime which constitute infringement: that party must commit to accept a court-determined license if it wishes to avoid an injunction.
Optis alleged that Apple had infringed eight of its telecommunications patents (Optis Patents) through Apple’s 3G and 4G connected devices. Each of the Optis Patents had been declared ‘essential’ to the telecommunications standards of the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), a standards-setting organization (SSO). Under its undertaking to ETSI, Optis was obliged to offer Apple a license of its patents (including the Optis Patents) on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Optis alleged that it had done this, but its proposal had been rejected as Apple believed that the offer had not been FRAND. In the meantime, Apple had continued making use of Optis’ patents, holding out for better terms.
Six trials were listed to resolve the dispute. The sixth trial (Trial F: [2021] EWHC 2564 (Pat)) was intended to determine whether Apple was permanently disentitled to rely on Optis’ undertaking to ETSI and therefore be subject to an unqualified injunction. Meade J considered ETSI’s IPR policy, finding that the policy does not operate to protect implementers from infringement proceedings where that implementer has not first taken a FRAND license. Apple therefore needed to immediately enter into a license so as to no longer infringe. Apple’s argument that it was willing to enter into a license was rejected as, in reality, it only wanted a license on its own terms. However, Meade J disagreed with Optis that any refusal by an implementer to enter into a FRAND license permanently prevents that implementer from entering into a FRAND license at any later time. Consequently, he found that Apple should be injuncted unless it committed to taking a FRAND license.
Apple appealed, arguing that:
a SEP has been found valid and infringed; and
the FRAND terms of a license have been determined.
The Court of Appeal disagreed: there cannot be an indefinite period of negotiations between the parties as to what constitutes FRAND terms: where the parties cannot agree, it is for a court to resolve the issue. The implementer does not get to continue to operate without a license scot-free in the meantime. If Apple wanted to avoid the normal consequences of having been found to infringe, it could have committed to taking a license upon terms determined to be FRAND by the court; if it did not want to commit in this way, then it should have refrained from infringing.
The court also upheld Meade J’s decision regarding implementers not becoming permanently disentitled to rely upon the SEP owner’s undertaking. An implementer could change its mind at any time, at which point there is no reason why it should not be entitled to enter into a license on FRAND terms.
The court’s judgment affirms that implementers may not refuse to commit to enter into a FRAND license whilst continuing to make non-infringing use of the patents. Arnold LJ described patent infringement proceedings as often constituting a “war of attrition” which generally favors the implementer (as they may starve the patentee of royalties): this judgment is therefore likely to be welcome to patentees as it will encourage implementers to at least commit to enter into a license upon terms determined by the court.
In a post-script, Arnold LJ observed that this appeal illustrated “yet again the dysfunctional state of the current system for determining SEP/ FRAND disputes”, since “Apple’s behavior … could well be argued to constitute a form of hold out” (the implementer implements a technical solution covered by a SEP without paying the reasonable market value), whilst “Optis’ contention that an unqualified injunction should be granted would open the doors to hold up” (the owner of a SEP uses the threat of an injunction against implementers to obtain more favorable license terms). He considered that each side had “adopted its position in an attempt to game the system” and noted that the “only way to put a stop to such behavior is for [SSOs] like ETSI to make legally-enforceable arbitration of such disputes part of their IPR policies”. Whether SSOs adapt their IPR policies accordingly remains to be seen.
Below are some of the questions we are regularly asked by startups, covering a range of topic areas.
UK law firm Browne Jacobson, which opened its first overseas office in Dublin in September, has outlined its strategic plans to grow its legal team over the next four years.
Bishopsgate Corporate Finance and law firm Browne Jacobson have jointly advised on the acquisition of award-winning tech solutions business, Custard Technical Services by US managers services and cyber security provider, Thrive.
In the ongoing complex litigation between Optis Cellular Technology LLC and Apple Inc., the Court of Appeal ([2022] EWCA Civ 1411) has upheld the High Court’s findings that implementers of standard-essential patents (SEPs) cannot refuse to accept a FRAND license and continue activities in the meantime which constitute infringement: that party must commit to accept a court-determined license if it wishes to avoid an injunction.
Every AI will have its own terms of use. DALL·E 2’s Terms of Use dated 3 November 2022 specify that as between a user and Open AI, a user owns their prompts and uploads. Open AI also assigns to the user all rights in any images generated by DALL·E 2 for that user (subject to the user complying with those Terms of Use, and to a licence to use inputs and output to develop and improve the services).
A deepfake of Bruce Willis is advertising Russian mobile phones. Many great artistic and metaphysical questions are raised by this performance. However, this article is going to look at the intellectual property law implications, from a UK perspective.
The Digital Services Act (the “DSA”) has today (27 October) been given the go-ahead by the EU Council and will enter into force by early 2024.
Browne Jacobson’s corporate technology dealmakers have advised Agilico, a workplace technology business, on its acquisition of Capital Document Solutions Limited for an undisclosed amount.
The increased use of artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionising the way businesses operate and is having a disruptive impact in sectors that have traditionally been slow to modernise.
The Chancellor’s recent mini-budget provided a significant announcement for business as it was confirmed that the off-payroll working rules (known as “IR35”) put in place for public and private sector businesses from 2017 and 2021 will be scrapped from April 2023.
Browne Jacobson’s specialist cleantech lawyers have advised AIM listed Clean Power Hydrogen Group Limited (CPH2) on its licence agreement with Bentec GmbH, a member of the Kenera business of the KCA Deutag Group. Kenera will manufacture CPH2’s unique membrane-free electrolysers from its facility in Bad Bentheim, Germany.
Browne Jacobson’s corporate finance lawyers have advised leading mid-market private equity firm, LDC and management on the sale of specialist managed IT services provider, Littlefish to Bowmark Capital.
The Digital Markets Act (the “DMA”) joins the dots between competition law and data protection law and actively targets data-driven platforms. It is also a comprehensive regulation to take note of, with familiar GDPR-style fines tied to turnover.
The Court of Appeal has dismissed two cases regarding rent arrears accrued during the Covid lockdowns. The cases are London Trocadero (2015) LLP v Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd and Bank of New York Mellon (International) Ltd v Cine-UK Ltd.
We advised equity investor, Business Growth Fund on its exit from mobile data SIMs & business communications specialist Jola Cloud Solutions.
National law firm Browne Jacobson has been ranked again for both its patent litigation and transactional work in the 2022 edition of IAM Patent 1000, the independent guide to the world’s leading patent law firms and practitioners.
This article covers, at a high level, some of the legal issues that arise in the lifecycle of the innovation and deployment of new technology within the energy sector. It is not intended to be a comprehensive account of all legal aspects.
First Hydrogen has identified 4 sites in the UK where it plans to locate large hydrogen refuelling stations for commercial vehicles. The sites will also accommodate on-site hydrogen production of between 20 and 40 MW (totalling 80 MW - 160 MW across all 4 locations) and will serve the urban areas of Greater Liverpool, Greater Manchester, London and the Thames Estuary. The plans form part of the Energy division’s strategy to develop green hydrogen production projects, initially in the UK and Canada.
As has been widely reported this week, some 3,000 UK workers are taking part in a six month trial to assess the viability of a four-day working week without any reduction in their normal pay.
National law firm Browne Jacobson has launched an electric vehicle (EV) scheme as part of its employee benefits package. The benefit will be available to all of the firm’s employees across its five offices, including Birmingham, Exeter, London, Manchester, and Nottingham.
In anticipation of the adoption of the Building Safety Bill, our specialist compliance and regulatory team will give an overview of the measures proposed in the Bill.
