Significant judgment on Standard Essential Patents handed down by the Court of Appeal

No items found.
​
October 23, 2018
#
Litigation
#
Digital
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

EIP has today secured a judgment on behalf of its client Unwired Planet, in a case which has significant international implications for all patent holders and licensees of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs).

This morning the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in Unwired Planet v Huawei, upholding Mr Justice Birss’ decision. Notably, the Court of Appeal ruled that that a global SEP portfolio owner can meet its FRAND obligations by offering a worldwide licence, and if that offer is refused, then the implementor may be subject to an injunction preventing further infringements in the UK.

In assessing this, the Court commented that global licensing is efficient and aligns with world-wide cellular standards and sales of mobile phones. The Court noted that Mr Justice Birss correctly took into account the realities of the unnecessary costs and risks of country-by-country licensing and of industry practice when ruling that global licensing was FRAND.

The Court of Appeal also held that Unwired Planet had not discriminated against Huawei, and that the FRAND obligation did not amount to a “most favoured nation” approach to licensing. Instead, a SEP holder’s FRAND undertaking requires it to offer licences which reflect the proper valuation of its portfolio.

Huawei have indicated that they intend to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. Permission was refused by the Court of Appeal but it remains open to Huawei to seek permission from the Supreme Court itself.


Gary Moss, Head of Litigation at EIP, said:

“We are pleased by the outcome of the appeal. The court’s judgment confirms several important points of principle as to the appropriate scope and value of SEP licences. This provides global patent holders and licensees with a more efficient framework to help resolve SEP licensing issues.”


The EIP team comprised Gary Moss, Andrew Sharples, Angela Jack, Catherine Howell, Jack Dickerson and Owen Waugh.

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
​
Litigation insurance as security for costs
30 March 2026
In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.
​
National law applies to claims for loss of profit if the events occurred before the UPC came into force
30 March 2026
In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.
​