Mitsubishi Electric Corporation & Anor v Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co Ltd & Ors (FRAND CMC Judgment) [2021] EWHC 493 (Pat) (04 March 2021)

Mitsubishi Electric Corporation & Anor v Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co Ltd & Ors (FRAND CMC Judgment) [2021] EWHC 493 (Pat) (04 March 2021)

The methodology proposed to be employed in any essentiality review must be pleaded as soon as possible, and Defendants must answer RFIs 14 and 15 regarding essentiality rates and assumptions, to ensure clarity, fairness, and effective case management in the FRAND dispute.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 493 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Mitsubishi Electric Corporation; Claimant: Sisvel International SA; Defendant: Archos SA; Defendant: Sun Cupid Technology HK Ltd; Defendant: NUU Mobile UK Limited; Defendant: OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd; Defendant: Oplus Mobiletech UK Limited; Defendant: Reflection Investment B. V.; Defendant: Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp, Ltd; Defendant: Oppo Mobile UK Ltd; Defendant: Xiaomi Communications Co Ltd; Defendant: Xiaomi Inc; Defendant: Xiaomi Technology France SAS; Defendant: Xiaomi Technology UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and FRAND Licensing Dispute / Case Management Conference (cmc) Third Cmc, Interlocutory Ruling on Requests for Further Information
Outcome
Interlocutory order granted in part; Defendants required to answer RFIs 14 and 15 by specified date.
Legal Topics
FRAND Licensing, Patent Essentiality Review, Case Management, Disclosure, Pleading Requirements
Intellectual Property Patents Telecommunications FRAND Licensing Patent Essentiality Review Case Management Disclosure Pleading Requirements

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mitsubishi Electric Corporation

Claimant

Sisvel International SA

Claimant

Archos SA

Defendant

Sun Cupid Technology HK Ltd

Defendant

NUU Mobile UK Limited

Defendant

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd

Defendant

Oplus Mobiletech UK Limited

Defendant

Reflection Investment B. V.

Defendant

Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp, Ltd

Defendant

Oppo Mobile UK Ltd

Defendant

Xiaomi Communications Co Ltd

Defendant

Xiaomi Inc

Defendant

Xiaomi Technology France SAS

Defendant

Xiaomi Technology UK Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and FRAND Licensing Dispute / Case Management Conference (cmc) Third Cmc, Interlocutory Ruling on Requests for Further Information

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Defendants must plead methodology for essentiality review in FRAND dispute
  2. 2 Whether Defendants must respond to Requests for Further Information (RFIs) 14 and 15 before expert evidence stage

Ratio Decidendi

The methodology proposed to be employed in any essentiality review must be pleaded as soon as possible, and Defendants must answer RFIs 14 and 15 regarding essentiality rates and assumptions, to ensure clarity, fairness, and effective case management in the FRAND dispute.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory order granted in part; Defendants required to answer RFIs 14 and 15 by specified date.

Orders

  • Xiaomi Defendants must answer Requests for Further Information 14 and 15 by 10 am on Monday 22 March 2021.
  • Both sets of Defendants must provide answers to Claimants' RFIs by 10 am on Monday 22 March 2021.