Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 256 (Pat) (10 February 2020)

Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 256 (Pat) (10 February 2020)

The application for further disclosure was refused because, although third party licences may have evidential value, ordering disclosure at this stage would not be reasonable or proportionate given the imminent trial date and the significant additional burden it would impose on the parties.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 256 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Conversant Wireless Licensing S.à.r.l; Defendant: Huawei Technologies Co., Limited; Defendant: Huawei Technologies (UK) Co., Limited; Defendant: ZTE Corporation; Defendant: ZTE (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Disclosure in FRAND Patent Litigation / Interlocutory Application Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application for further disclosure refused
Legal Topics
Disclosure, FRAND Licensing, Standard Essential Patents, Case Management
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Disclosure FRAND Licensing Standard Essential Patents 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Conversant Wireless Licensing S.à.r.l

Claimant

Huawei Technologies Co., Limited

Defendant

Huawei Technologies (UK) Co., Limited

Defendant

ZTE Corporation

Defendant

ZTE (UK) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Disclosure in FRAND Patent Litigation / Interlocutory Application Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further disclosure of third party licences by Huawei and ZTE should be ordered in a FRAND dispute
  2. 2 Whether the application meets the necessity and proportionality requirements under the Disclosure Pilot (PD 51U)

Ratio Decidendi

The application for further disclosure was refused because, although third party licences may have evidential value, ordering disclosure at this stage would not be reasonable or proportionate given the imminent trial date and the significant additional burden it would impose on the parties.

Court Disposition

Application for further disclosure refused

Orders

  • Conversant's application for disclosure is dismissed
  • Costs summarily assessed: Huawei awarded £100,000, ZTE awarded £60,000