Koninklijke Philips NV v Asustek Computer Inorporation & Ors [2020] EWHC 29 (Ch) (17 January 2020)

Koninklijke Philips NV v Asustek Computer Inorporation & Ors [2020] EWHC 29 (Ch) (17 January 2020)

The extent to which the terms of a declared FRAND licence inform the assessment of damages for past infringement is a question of fact to be determined at trial. There is no automatic linkage between the declared licence and the hypothetical licence used for damages. Since the quantum and scope of damages remain unresolved, ASUS must remain a defendant in Trial D and its application for removal is dismissed.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 29 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Koninklijke Philips NV; First Defendant: ASUSTek Computer Incorporation; Second Defendant: ASUSTek (UK) Limited; Third Defendant: ASUS Technology PTE Limited; Fourth Defendant: HTC Corporation; Fifth Defendant: HTC Europe Co Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and FRAND Licensing Dispute / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out/summary Judgment Prior to Main Trial (trial D)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Standard Essential Patents, FRAND Licensing, Patent Damages, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Intellectual Property Patents Competition Law Standard Essential Patents FRAND Licensing Patent Damages Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Koninklijke Philips NV

Claimant

ASUSTek Computer Incorporation

First Defendant

ASUSTek (UK) Limited

Second Defendant

ASUS Technology PTE Limited

Third Defendant

HTC Corporation

Fourth Defendant

HTC Europe Co Limited

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and FRAND Licensing Dispute / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out/summary Judgment Prior to Main Trial (trial D)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ASUS can be removed as a defendant from Trial D by waiving its right to a FRAND licence and consenting to an injunction and damages for past infringement
  2. 2 Whether damages for past infringement should be calculated only on UK infringing devices or on a worldwide portfolio basis under a hypothetical FRAND licence
  3. 3 Whether the linkage between the terms of a declared FRAND licence and the assessment of damages for past infringement is automatic or fact-dependent

Ratio Decidendi

The extent to which the terms of a declared FRAND licence inform the assessment of damages for past infringement is a question of fact to be determined at trial. There is no automatic linkage between the declared licence and the hypothetical licence used for damages. Since the quantum and scope of damages remain unresolved, ASUS must remain a defendant in Trial D and its application for removal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ASUS application to be removed as defendant from Trial D is dismissed.
  • Parties to draw up an order including provision for amendments to pleadings.