NIPC Law

Jane Lambert   Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor)  Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 2826 (Pat) (22 Oct 2021) In Disclosure - Anan Kasei Co. Ltd v Neo Chemicals & Oxides (Europe) Ltd   I discussed a case in which Mr Justice Mellor refused to relax restrictions on highly confidential material that had been disclosed for external eyes only ("EEO").  EEO essentially means a party's solicitors and counsel but not the party itself.  In  Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 2826 (Pat) (22 Oct 2021), the same judge reached an opposite decision even though he applied the same guidelines. The application for the relaxation of EEO restrictions was one of two applications by Huawei Technologies (UK) Ltd. ("HTUK"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Chinese telecommunications equipment giant, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. The other application was for an order for the claimant, Godo ...

Author  Dori   Public Domain Source  Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Patents Court  (Mr Justice Mellor)  Mitsubishi Electric Corporation and another v Archos SA and others   [[2021] EWHC 1639 (Pat) (16 June 2021) The first claimant is the proprietor of European patents  2,254,259 ("259") and  1,903 689 ("689") . They are part of a portfolio called the "MCP Pool!" which the claimants have promised to license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory ("FRAND") terms.  The defendants are manufacturers of 4G mobile phones.  The claimants argued that the defendants required their licence in order to comply with the LTE (4G) standard concerned with the transmission of a scheduling request (SR) to request uplink resources. The defendants denied that those patents were essential for compliance with the patent and pleaded that the patents were invalid for lack of novelty and an inventive step.  They also alleged that 689 was bad for ad...

Xiaomi Tech Park, Beijing Author Plerxemo   Licence CC BY-SA 3,0   Source Wikimedia Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor) Mitsubishi Electric Corporation and another v Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 1541 (Pat) (8 June 2021) Sometimes a procedural application can lead to a debate on fundamental principles of substantive law. Such was the case in  Mitsubishi Electric Corporation and another v Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 1541 (Pat) (8 June 2021).  The application was brought by Xiaomi Cimmunications Inc. and others ("the 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th defendants who are referred to in the judgment as "the Xiaomi defendants").  They applied for the claim in this action by Sisvel International SA  ("Sisvel") (the second claimant) to be dismissed and for all future claims by Sisvel against the Xiaomi defendants to be stayed. The Litigation Sisvel administers a portfolio of patents for mobile t...

Author Dori   Public Domain Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor) Mitsubishi Electric Corporation v Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co, Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 1048 (Pat) (26 April 2021) This was a trial to determine whether European patent (UK) 1925142B1  is essential to version 10.0.0 and all subsequent versions of TS36.322 of the 4th generation 3GPP Long-Term Evolution (“LTE’) standard.  The registered proprietor of the patent is SISVEL International S.A which is the second claimant in these proceedings.   The proceedings are part of a wider dispute as to whether the defendants should take a licence from the first claimant's patent pool ("MCP pool") on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory ("FRAND") terms.  As is often the case in FRAND disputes the defendant implementors denied the patent's validity, its essentiality to the standard and that it had been infringed.  They also disputed the fairn...

The Rolls Building Author Basher Eyre   Licence CC BY-SA 2.0   Source  Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor) Mitsubishi Electric Company and another v Archos SA and others   [2021] EWHC 889 (Pat) (13 April 2021) A FRAND case is essentially a patent infringement claim where the remedy to which a successful claimant would normally be entitled has been modified by agreement.  Mr Justice Birss summarized the principle succinctly at para [83] of his judgment in   Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and anothe r [2017] EWHC 711 (Pat) (5 April 2017): "The point of FRAND in standard setting is fairly easy to understand. Standards exist so that different manufacturers can produce equipment which is interoperable with the result that the manufacturers compete with one another. So the phone makers compete in the market for phones and the public can select a phone from any supplier and be sure (for exa...

Author Raysonho Licence CC 1,0     Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor) Mitsubishi Electric Corporation and another v Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co Ltd and others (FRAND CMC Judgment ) [2021] EWHC 493 (Pat) (4 March 2021) This was an application for an order under Part 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules requiring the 9th to 12th defendants ("the Xiaomi defendants") to answer the claimants; requests for further information of their statement of case.  The claimants had served over 100 requests upon the Xiaomi defendants on 12 Feb 2021 most of which those defendants had offered to answer by 16 March 2021. However, there were 2 requests that they refused to answer on the grounds that they were requests for expert evidence to which the claimants were not entitled until the exchange of experts' reports. At a case management conference before Mr Justice Mellor on 2 March 2021, the claimants applied for an order requiring the 9th to 12th defendants to answer all 100 ...

Jane Lambert   Patents Court (Sir Alistair Norris)  Mitsubishi Electric Corporation and another v Archos SA and other s [2020] EWHC 2641 (Pat) (9 Oct 2020) In these proceedings, Sir Alistair Norris was asked to vary a confidentiality order that had been made by Mr Justice Mann at a case management conference on 22 July 2020.  The order was made in an action to set the terms of a licence to work certain patents that were alleged to be essential for compliance with a mobile telecommunications standard. That was one of a number of issues between the Mitsubishi Electric Corporation and    Sisvel International SA on the one hand and several implementers of the standard on the other.   The other issues were the jurisdiction of the English courts, whether the patents had been infringed and whether the terms of the licence that the claimants were prepared to offer were fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory ("FRAND"). The reason why Mr Justice Mann made ...