Mitsubishi Electric Corporation & Anor v Archos SA & Ors [2021] EWHC 889 (Pat) (13 April 2021)

Mitsubishi Electric Corporation & Anor v Archos SA & Ors [2021] EWHC 889 (Pat) (13 April 2021)

The court ordered the Claimants to provide a detailed statement of case on essentiality, including the asserted essentiality rate, sources, methodology, and selection process for MCP Pool patents, and to disclose documents evidencing the methodology for inclusion of patents in the MCP Pool. The court declined to order responses or disclosure where requests were overly broad or disproportionate, but required mutual disclosure of patent lists and filters used in essentiality calculations. The court's approach is guided by the need for active case management and proportionality, ensuring both parties can prepare their cases on essentiality for trial.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 889 (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
13 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Patent/frand Dispute / Case Management Conference (cmc) and Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Interlocutory orders made; directions given for further statements of case and disclosure; some requests refused as disproportionate or irrelevant.
Legal Topics
FRAND Licensing, Essentiality Review, Disclosure, Case Management, Patent Pools
Intellectual Property Patents FRAND Licensing Essentiality Review Disclosure Case Management Patent Pools

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/frand Dispute / Case Management Conference (cmc) and Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimants must provide further information and disclosure regarding the essentiality rate of the MCP Pool patents
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants are entitled to disclosure and information to test the Claimants' assertion of a 100% essentiality rate
  3. 3 Appropriate scope of disclosure and further information requests in FRAND litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The court ordered the Claimants to provide a detailed statement of case on essentiality, including the asserted essentiality rate, sources, methodology, and selection process for MCP Pool patents, and to disclose documents evidencing the methodology for inclusion of patents in the MCP Pool. The court declined to order responses or disclosure where requests were overly broad or disproportionate, but required mutual disclosure of patent lists and filters used in essentiality calculations. The court's approach is guided by the need for active case management and proportionality, ensuring both parties can prepare their cases on essentiality for trial.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders made; directions given for further statements of case and disclosure; some requests refused as disproportionate or irrelevant.

Orders

  • Claimants to serve a detailed statement of case on essentiality covering specified topics.
  • Claimants to disclose documents evidencing the methodology for choosing patents for inclusion in the MCP Pool within purchased portfolios.