InterDigital Inc & Ors, In the Matter Of (Re Optis Cellular Technology LLC & Ors v Apple Retail UK Ltd & Ors) [2025] EWCA Civ 1263 (07 October 2025)

InterDigital Inc & Ors, In the Matter Of (Re Optis Cellular Technology LLC & Ors v Apple Retail UK Ltd & Ors) [2025] EWCA Civ 1263 (07 October 2025)

The correct legal approach is the balancing exercise established in Unwired Planet v Huawei and InterDigital v Lenovo, not an automatic redaction for trade secrets under the Trade Secrets Regulations 2018. Both lump sum and per unit financial figures, as well as derived averages and totals, are confidential and their disclosure would cause real commercial harm to third parties. Therefore, all such financial information must be redacted from the published judgment. Factual errors identified by third parties should be corrected under the slip rule.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 1263
Parties
Claimant: Optis Cellular Technology LLC and Others; Defendant/appellant: Apple Retail UK Ltd and Others; Third Party Appellant: InterDigital, Inc.; Third Party Appellant: Qualcomm Inc.; Third Party Appellant: Nokia Corporation; Third Party Appellant: Google LLC; Third Party Appellant: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd; Third Party Appellant: LG Electronics
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment on Confidentiality/redactions
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
FRAND Licensing, Confidentiality, Trade Secrets, Patent Licensing, Open Justice, Redaction of Judgments
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure FRAND Licensing Confidentiality Trade Secrets Patent Licensing Open Justice Redaction of Judgments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Optis Cellular Technology LLC and Others

Claimant

Apple Retail UK Ltd and Others

Defendant/appellant

InterDigital, Inc.

Third Party Appellant

Qualcomm Inc.

Third Party Appellant

Nokia Corporation

Third Party Appellant

Google LLC

Third Party Appellant

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd

Third Party Appellant

LG Electronics

Third Party Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment on Confidentiality/redactions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether financial terms (lump sums and per unit rates) in third-party patent licences disclosed in FRAND litigation should be redacted from published judgments
  2. 2 Whether the correct legal test for redaction is the 'old test' (balancing exercise) or the 'new test' (automatic redaction for trade secrets under Trade Secrets Regulations 2018)
  3. 3 Whether averages and totals derived from confidential financial data should also be redacted

Ratio Decidendi

The correct legal approach is the balancing exercise established in Unwired Planet v Huawei and InterDigital v Lenovo, not an automatic redaction for trade secrets under the Trade Secrets Regulations 2018. Both lump sum and per unit financial figures, as well as derived averages and totals, are confidential and their disclosure would cause real commercial harm to third parties. Therefore, all such financial information must be redacted from the published judgment. Factual errors identified by third parties should be corrected under the slip rule.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • All lump sum and per unit financial figures, including derived averages and totals, to be redacted from the published judgment.
  • Factual errors in Annex 3 regarding InterDigital and LG Electronics licences to be corrected under the slip rule.