UK Court of Appeal will deliver Unwired Planet v Huawei decision on 23 October 2018

The AmeriKat reading the 
Court of Appeal judgment
The AmeriKat frequently prowls the Daily Cause List (the list of scheduled hearings and decisions in the English Courts) searching for interesting IP hearings and decisions being handed down.  Although the Unwired Planet appeal hearing was in May, no sign of the Court of Appeal's decision was appearing in the Daily Cause List.  The overheated English summer saw no sign.  Nor did the first windy days of the new Court term.  But then, there it was.  On Friday afternoon, it appeared on the AmeriKat's screen as follows:

TUESDAY, 23 OCTOBER, 2018 in COURT 74, at 10.30, Judgment will be given in the following: APPEAL
From The Chancery Division
Patents Court
A3/2017/1784 Unwired Planet International Limited and anr -v- Huawei Technologies Co. Limited and anr.

This will be an important decision for global FRAND/SEP litigation and strategy (see previous reports here).  One of the key issues on appeal from Mr Justice Birss'  decision was the extent of the English court's ability to determine global FRAND rates and licence terms and, accordingly, whether there is only "one" set of FRAND terms in any case.  Other issues, include whether Huawei had a Article 102 defence to Unwired Planet's claim for an injunction (and the Huawei v ZTE arguments that follow) and whether the "ND" in FRAND (i.e. non-discrimination) allows SEP holders to charge different royalty rates for similarly situated licensees.

The IPKat team will be back next week to report on the key findings of the Court of Appeal, with analysis to follow.
UK Court of Appeal will deliver Unwired Planet v Huawei decision on 23 October 2018 UK Court of Appeal will deliver Unwired Planet v Huawei decision on 23 October 2018 Reviewed by Annsley Merelle Ward on Tuesday, October 16, 2018 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.