Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v Huawei Technologies Co, Limited & Ors.

Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v Huawei Technologies Co, Limited & Ors.

The court ordered that the defendants must identify, by early September, which licence comparables are likely to be important for the de-designation application, with the de-designation hearing to follow after the claimant's FRAND evidence in October. Pleadings of Delaware and Chinese law are required. The claimant must undertake broader disclosure regarding communications with Panasonic. Huawei is ordered to pay the costs of the abandoned Trial E, with an interim payment set at one-third of the claimed amount, and detailed assessment of costs is deferred unless agreed or further ordered.

Parties
Claimant: Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1; Defendant: Huawei Technologies Co., Limited; Defendant: Huawei Device Co., Limited; Defendant: Huawei Technologies (UK) Co., Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Patent/frand Dispute / Interlocutory Judgment on Case Management, Confidentiality, Pleadings, Disclosure, and Costs
Outcome
Interlocutory orders granted as set out in judgment.
Legal Topics
FRAND Licensing, Confidentiality Designations, Foreign Law Pleading, Disclosure Obligations, Costs Orders, Exhaustion of Rights
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure FRAND Licensing Confidentiality Designations Foreign Law Pleading Disclosure Obligations Costs Orders Exhaustion of Rights

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1

Claimant

Huawei Technologies Co., Limited

Defendant

Huawei Device Co., Limited

Defendant

Huawei Technologies (UK) Co., Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent/frand Dispute / Interlocutory Judgment on Case Management, Confidentiality, Pleadings, Disclosure, and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Timing and process for de-designation of confidential licence comparables
  2. 2 Requirement for pleading principles of foreign law (Delaware and Chinese law)
  3. 3 Extent and timing of disclosure obligations

Ratio Decidendi

The court ordered that the defendants must identify, by early September, which licence comparables are likely to be important for the de-designation application, with the de-designation hearing to follow after the claimant's FRAND evidence in October. Pleadings of Delaware and Chinese law are required. The claimant must undertake broader disclosure regarding communications with Panasonic. Huawei is ordered to pay the costs of the abandoned Trial E, with an interim payment set at one-third of the claimed amount, and detailed assessment of costs is deferred unless agreed or further ordered.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders granted as set out in judgment.

Orders

  • Defendants to provide witness statement by early September identifying important licence comparables for de-designation application.
  • De-designation application to be heard after claimant's FRAND evidence in October.