InterDigital, Inc & Ors v Optis Cellular Technology LLC & Ors

InterDigital, Inc & Ors v Optis Cellular Technology LLC & Ors

The correct legal approach is the balancing exercise ('old test'), not an automatic redaction under the Trade Secrets Regulations. Both lump sum and per unit financial figures, as well as derived averages and totals, are confidential and their publication would materially harm the competitive position of the relevant parties. Therefore, all such information should be redacted from the published judgment. Factual errors should be corrected under the slip rule.

Parties
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; Claimant: Optis Cellular Technology LLC and Others; Defendant/appellant: Apple Retail UK Ltd and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Confidentiality Redactions in FRAND Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed (save for redaction of corrected information in Annex 3)
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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

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

Optis Cellular Technology LLC and Others

Claimant

Apple Retail UK Ltd and Others

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Confidentiality Redactions in FRAND Judgment

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 of trade secrets under Trade Secrets Regulations)
  3. 3 Whether averages and totals derived from confidential data should also be redacted

Ratio Decidendi

The correct legal approach is the balancing exercise ('old test'), not an automatic redaction under the Trade Secrets Regulations. Both lump sum and per unit financial figures, as well as derived averages and totals, are confidential and their publication would materially harm the competitive position of the relevant parties. Therefore, all such information should be redacted from the published judgment. Factual errors should be corrected under the slip rule.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed (save for redaction of corrected information in Annex 3)

Orders

  • All financial terms (lump sums, per unit rates, averages, totals) in third-party licences to be redacted from published judgment
  • Factual errors in Annex 3 to be corrected under slip rule