Posts

Showing posts with the label Optis Cellular

Optis v Apple - The "Trial D" Appeal

Image
Photo   Maebmij   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Newey, Arnold and Birss)    Optis Cellular Technology LLC and others v Apple Retail UK Ltd and other s [2023] EWCA Civ 758 (4 July 2023) This was an appeal by Applie Inc and two of its subsidiaries ("Apple") against the judgment of Mr Justice Meade in    Optis Cellular Technology LLC and others v Apple Retail Uk Ltd and others [2022] EWHC 561 (Pat) (15 March 2022) that European patents (UK)  2 187 549 B1  and 2 690 810 B1  were valid, essential to the LTE standard  and infringed by Apple.  The action before Mr Justice Meade was called "Trial D" because it was the last of a series of trials to determine whether a portfolio of patents that had been granted to Panasonic and subsequently assigned to the respondents were valid and essential to the LTE standard and whether they had been infringed.  To put this litigati...

Patents - Interdigital Technology Corporation and others v Lenovo Group Ltd. and others

Image
Author Interdigital Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor) Interdigital Technology Corp and others v Lenovo Group Ltd and others    [2023]   EWHC 539 (Pat) 16 March 2023 This was the second time that an English court had been called upon to determine what terms were fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory ("FRAND") in a licence between holders of patents that are essential for compliance with a technical standard ("standard essential patent" or "SEPs") and those wishing to use those patents to comply with the standard ("implementers").  The other time was in  Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies (UK) Ltd and another  [2017] EWHC 711 (Pat) ("UPHC").  Mr Justice Birss (as he then was) settled an agreement on FRAND  terms which he annexed to his judgment in  Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and another [2017] EWHC 1304 (Pa...

Optis v Apple - Trial F: Whether an Implementor is bound to take a Licence on FRAND Terms before knowing what they are

Image
A uthor a jay_suresh   Licence CC BY 2.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Meade)  Optis Cellular Technology LLC and others v Apple Retail UK Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 2564 (Pat) (27 Sep 2021) This was one of a number of trials between Optis Cellular Technologies LLC, Cellular Wireless Technologies LLC and Unwired Planet International Limited ("Optis") of the one part and Apple Retail UK Ltd, Apple Distribution International Ltd and Apple Inc ("Apple") on the other.  Optis has alleged that Apple's iPhone, iPad and other 3G and 4G devices infringe 8 of its standard-essential patents ("SEP") when implementing an  ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute ) standard.  The litigation addresses the following questions.  The first is whether certain patents that have been granted to Optis are essential for the implementation of the standard.  If they are, the second question is whether the p...

Confidentiality - Optis Cellular Technology v Apple Retail

Image
Author Ambrosiani   Licence CC BY-SA 4,0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Marcus Smith) Optis Cellular Technology LLC and others v Apple Retail UK Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 2080 (Pat) (1 July 2021) On 23 Oct 2021, I discussed Mr Justice Meade's judgment in  Optis Cellular Technology LLC and others v Apple Retail UK Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 1739 (Pat) (25 June 2021). That had been "trial B" in a series of trials between the owners of certain telecommunications patents and Apple Inc and its subsidiaries.  This case was an application in a case management conference before Mr Justice Marcus Smith for trial "E".  It did not involve the claimants who were allowed to withdraw from the hearing.  It lay between the defendants and a company known only as "the third party." The Application The defendants applied for an order that a licence with the third party be provided for inspection to the claimants in accorda...