Mitsubishi Electric Corporation & Anor v Archos SA & Ors

Mitsubishi Electric Corporation & Anor v Archos SA & Ors

The court ordered an exchange of detailed statements of case on essentiality ratios, requiring the Claimants to specify their case, sources, methodology, and selection process for MCP Pool patents. Disclosure of patent lists and filters used in analysis was ordered, subject to mutuality. Requests for further information and disclosure were granted or declined based on relevance and proportionality, with the court aiming to resolve the logjam and enable effective case management for the FRAND trial.

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
Patents/frand / Case Management Conference (cmc) Ruling
Outcome
Ruling on procedural applications and directions for further pleadings and disclosure.
Legal Topics
FRAND Licensing, Essentiality Review, Disclosure, Case Management
Intellectual Property Patents FRAND Licensing Essentiality Review Disclosure Case Management

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 2 Party arguments 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

Patents/frand / Case Management Conference (cmc) Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimants' assertion of a 100% essentiality rate for the MCP Pool is substantiated and relevant
  2. 2 Adequacy of pleadings and disclosure regarding essentiality ratios
  3. 3 Proportionality and scope of requests for further information and disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The court ordered an exchange of detailed statements of case on essentiality ratios, requiring the Claimants to specify their case, sources, methodology, and selection process for MCP Pool patents. Disclosure of patent lists and filters used in analysis was ordered, subject to mutuality. Requests for further information and disclosure were granted or declined based on relevance and proportionality, with the court aiming to resolve the logjam and enable effective case management for the FRAND trial.

Court Disposition

Ruling on procedural applications and directions for further pleadings and disclosure.

Orders

  • Claimants to serve a detailed statement of case on essentiality ratios, including methodology and selection process.
  • Defendants to respond with equivalent detail in their statement of case.