Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd & Ors

Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd & Ors

The application for additional 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 trial timetable and case management difficulties. The necessity and proportionality requirements under PD 51U were not met.

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 Ruling
Outcome
application for disclosure refused
Legal Topics
FRAND Licensing, Disclosure, Case Management, Comparative Licensing, Confidentiality, Proportionality
Intellectual Property Patents Civil Procedure FRAND Licensing Disclosure Case Management Comparative Licensing Confidentiality +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 6 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 Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether additional disclosure of third-party licences should be ordered in FRAND patent litigation
  2. 2 Whether the application meets the necessity, reasonableness, and proportionality requirements under PD 51U disclosure pilot
  3. 3 Impact of previous refusal of similar disclosure application

Ratio Decidendi

The application for additional 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 trial timetable and case management difficulties. The necessity and proportionality requirements under PD 51U were not met.

Court Disposition

application for disclosure refused

Orders

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