Mitsubishi Electric Corporation & Anor v Archos SA & Ors [2020] EWHC 2641 (Pat) (09 October 2020)

Mitsubishi Electric Corporation & Anor v Archos SA & Ors [2020] EWHC 2641 (Pat) (09 October 2020)

Redesignation of six specified AEO documents to HCM for the Oppo Defendants is granted, subject to undertakings by confidentiality club members not to participate in licensing negotiations with counterparties; wholesale redesignation of all AEO documents for the Xiaomi Defendants is refused as the risks and commercial sensitivity justify the current designations; admission of Oppo Defendants' nominated representatives to the HCM club is refused where they are directly involved in licensing negotiations, as this would create unacceptable risks to confidentiality and fair competition.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2641 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Mitsubishi Electric Corporation; Claimant: Sisvel International SA; Defendant: Archos SA; Defendant: Sun Cupid Technology HK Ltd; Defendant: NUU Mobile UK Ltd; Defendant: OnePlus Technology (Shenzen) Co Ltd; Defendant: OPlus Mobiletech UK Ltd; Defendant: Reflection Investment BV; Defendant: Guandong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd; Defendant: Oppo Mobile UK Ltd; Defendant: Xiaomi Communications Ltd; Defendant: Xiaomi Inc; Defendant: Xiaomi Technology France SAS; Defendant: Xiaomi Technology UK Limited; Intervener: X (counterparty company); Intervener: Y (counterparty company)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Patent Litigation (frand Licensing Dispute) / Interlocutory/case Management (confidentiality Designation and Club Membership Applications)
Outcome
Applications granted in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
Standard Essential Patents (seps), FRAND Licensing, Confidentiality Clubs, Disclosure and Inspection, Case Management, Injunctions
Intellectual Property Competition Law Civil Procedure Standard Essential Patents (seps) FRAND Licensing Confidentiality Clubs Disclosure and Inspection Case Management +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
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 Ltd

Defendant

OnePlus Technology (Shenzen) Co Ltd

Defendant

OPlus Mobiletech UK Ltd

Defendant

Reflection Investment BV

Defendant

Guandong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd

Defendant

Oppo Mobile UK Ltd

Defendant

Xiaomi Communications Ltd

Defendant

Xiaomi Inc

Defendant

Xiaomi Technology France SAS

Defendant

Xiaomi Technology UK Limited

Defendant

X (counterparty company)

Intervener

Y (counterparty company)

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Patent Litigation (frand Licensing Dispute) / Interlocutory/case Management (confidentiality Designation and Club Membership Applications)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether certain disclosed documents should be redesignated from 'Attorney's Eyes Only' (AEO) to 'Highly Confidential Material' (HCM)
  2. 2 Whether nominated representatives should be admitted to confidentiality clubs
  3. 3 Whether wholesale redesignation of AEO documents is justified

Ratio Decidendi

Redesignation of six specified AEO documents to HCM for the Oppo Defendants is granted, subject to undertakings by confidentiality club members not to participate in licensing negotiations with counterparties; wholesale redesignation of all AEO documents for the Xiaomi Defendants is refused as the risks and commercial sensitivity justify the current designations; admission of Oppo Defendants' nominated representatives to the HCM club is refused where they are directly involved in licensing negotiations, as this would create unacceptable risks to confidentiality and fair competition.

Court Disposition

Applications granted in part and refused in part.

Orders

  • Six specified AEO documents to be redesignated as HCM for Oppo Defendants, subject to undertakings.
  • Time for service of revised FRAND statements of case by Oppo and Xiaomi Defendants extended by 7 days after judgment.