NIPC Law

Chongqing Municipal People's Auditorium Author Iswzo   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Jackson, Arnold and Birss)  Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd and another v ZTE Corporation and other s [2025] EWCA Civ 1383 (31 Oct 2025) This was an appeal by ZTE Corporation and others ("ZTE") against the decision of Mr Justice Mellor in  Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and Another v ZTE Corporation and others [2025] EWHC 1432 (Pat) (25 June 2025) to grant Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd ("Samsung"), the following interim declarations: "1. ZTE are in breach of their obligations of good faith under clause 6.1 of the ETSI IPR Policy. 2. A willing licensor in the position of ZTE, and in light of the undertaking given by Samsung, would enter into the interim cross-licence with Samsung on terms and including the sum to be paid by Samsung by way of royalty in respect of the interim licence period...

European Commission Author:  Amio Cajander Source Wikipedia Creative Commons Licence A Euro-defence is an answer to a claim for the infringement of an intellectual property or other right under national law based on the primacy of European Union law. In the early days of our membership of what used to be called the European Economic Community such defences were pleaded quite regularly and they often succeeded. Probably the high water mark was Magill  ( Radio Telefis Eireann and Others v Commission of the European Communities   [1995] 4 CMLR 718, [1995] EUECJ C-241/91P, [1995] EMLR 337, [1995] All ER (EC) 416, [1995] ECR I-743, [1995] FSR 530, [1998] Masons CLR Rep 58) where the Court of Justice held that the enforcement of broadcasters' copyrights constituted an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of art 86 of the Treaty of Rome (now  art 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as it has now bec...

According to Wikipedia ,  Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, is the world's largest information technology company in terms of revenue. Apple Inc . is number two. Samsung supplies the famous Galaxy smart phone  and Apple the well known iPhone .  Over the last few years Samsung and Apple have fought each other in the world's court rooms.(see "Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd" in Wikipedia).  In the last round over Apple's registered Community design, Apple came off second best (see Jane Lambert "Apple v Samsung - the Appeal" 26 Oct 2012) and was made to eat humble pie (see Jane Lambert "Samsung v Apple: 'Be you never so high ....'." 2 Nov 2012 and "Samsung v Apple: the Reasons" 30 Dec 2012).  In  Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd v Apple Retail UK Ltd and Another (No. 1) [2013] EWHC 467 (Pat) and Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v Apple Retail UK Ltd and Another   (No. 2) [2013] EWHC 468 (Pat) Apple did rather better. Mr. Ju...

In " Samsung v Apple : "Be you never so high ....."  2 Nov 2012 I discussed the hearing of Samsung's complaint that Apple had failed to comply with the Court of Appeal's publicity order.   The terms of that order and Apple's purported compliance with it are to be found at  " Apple v Samsung - the Appeal" 26 Oct 2012. On the 2 Nov 2012 I promised to analyse the transcript should it ever be published. The Court of. Appeal gave its reasons for the order that I had previously discussed in  Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc (No. 3)  [2012] EWCA Civ 1430 (9 Nov 2012). I apologize for the 6 week delay between their publication and this analysis but my readers will learn very shortly that I have not exactly been idle during this time. Samsung objected to Samsung's notice on the following grounds: First it argued that it was not open to Apple to break up the text ordered by the court by adding in the middle of it matter that had not been o...

In Apple v Samsung: the Appeal   I discussed the notice that Apple was ordered to display on its British website and the words that it actually displayed.  Many people I spoke to (especially those who own Apple phones and tablets) thought that notice was very clever and marvelled at the spin that Apple had put on bad news.   It appears from "Apple ordered to re-write 'inaccurate' Samsung statement"   that the Court of Appeal took a different view and ordered Apple to take the notice down and replace it with one that does comply with their lordships' intentions. Apparently Apple's counsel asked the Court for 14 days to compose its new notice.  That seems to have gone down like a lead balloon,    Lord Justice Longmore replied:: "We are just amazed that you cannot put the right notice up at the same time as you take the other one down."  Sir Robin Jacob, added: "I would like to see the head of Apple make an affidavit about why that is such a t...

On 9 July 2012 HH Judge Birss QC, sitting as a judge of the High Court, held in Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc . [2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat) that Samsung's Galaxy 10.1, 8.9 and 7.7 tablet computers  did not infringe Apple Inc.'s Community design number 000181607-0001 . I discussed that judgment in this blog in " Apple v Samsung - Compare and Contrast" on 28 Aug 2012. A few days afterwards in  Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc (No. 2) [2012] EWHC 2049 (Pat) (18 July 2012) Judge Birss ordered Apple to display the following notice on the home page of their website and in advertisements in the national press: "On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design 000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available via the following link [insert hyper...

The BBC website carries an interview with Mr. Velvin Hogan , foreman of the jury in the Apple trial in California (see "Apple versus Samsung: Full interview with the jury foreman" BBC website 31 Aug 2012). . Mr. Hogan is chief technology officer at Multicast Labs, which develops video technology for the web, and he claims to have been familiar with the US patent system before the trial. This interview is fascinating for several reasons. For Mr. Hogan "one of the most decisive pieces of evidence was reading the minutes for myself of a meeting that was held at a very high level between Google executives and Samsung executives, where it was for a tablet and Google was concerned that for the sake of their operating system that the look and feel and the methodology that they [Samsung] were using to create their tablet was getting too close to what Apple was doing. And in the memo themselves - remember this was minutes - they stated that Google demanded that they back ...

Following its victory in California, Apple's shares rose by 1.88% while Samsung's fell by 7% even in Korea where Samsung won a partial victory (see "Apple seeks to ban sale of eight Samsung phones in US" BBC 27 Aug 2012). It was perhaps in anticipation of this reaction that Samsung applied for an injunction to restrain Apple "from representing to any person that the making and/or offering and/or putting on the market and/or importing and/or exporting and/or using the Claimant's Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Galaxy Tab 8.9 and Galaxy Tab 7.7 tablet computers and/or stocking the Claimant's Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Galaxy Tab 8.9 and Galaxy Tab 7.7 tablet computers for those purposes by the Claimant in the European Union infringes Registered Community Design 000181,607-0001" after its victory in    Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc [2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat) (9 July 2012). Judge Birss refused to make that order in Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc  (N...

As almost everyone on the planet will have heard by now, Apple Inc . won a convincing victory over Samsung Electronics Ltd . and its American subsidiaries in the US District Court for the Northern District of California on the 24 Aug 2012.  The claim was for the infringement of various US "utility" and "design patents" belonging to Apple and "dilution" and infringement of Apple's "trade dress" - causes of action that appear to be roughly equivalent to patent and registered design infringement and passing off in the UK and most other common law countries.   Samsung counterclaimed for the revocation of Apple's patents and damages and other relief for the infringement of its own patents.  As the 7th amendment to the US constitution guarantees trial by jury for claims over US$20, the claim and counterclaim came before a jury.  In its 20 page verdict that jury found for Apple on just about every issue and awarded Apple US$1,049,343,540 in da...