Nokia Corporation v Interdigital Technology Corporation [2007] EWHC 445 (Pat) (26 February 2007)

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2007] EWHC 445 (Pat)
Parties: Claimant: Nokia Corporation; Defendant: InterDigital Technology Corporation
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 26 February 2007
Procedural Posture: Patent Litigation / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Amendments to Pleadings and Requests for Further Information
Outcome: InterDigital's application to amend its defence to plead the second limb of the ETSI 'essential' definition is refused unless specific reasons are provided. The amendment alleging over-notification by Nokia is refused. InterDigital is not required to provide further information in the form requested by Nokia.
Legal Topics: Patent Essentiality, Declaratory Relief, FRAND Licensing, Pleading Standards, Negative Declarations

Intellectual Property Competition Law Civil Procedure Patent Essentiality Declaratory Relief FRAND Licensing Pleading Standards Negative Declarations

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Nokia Corporation

Claimant

InterDigital Technology Corporation

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Litigation / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Amendments to Pleadings and Requests for Further Information

Legal Issues

1 Whether InterDigital may amend its defence to plead the second limb of the ETSI 'essential' definition without specific grounds
2 Whether allegations of over-notification by Nokia, absent deliberation or recklessness, are relevant to the court's discretion to grant declaratory relief
3 Whether InterDigital must provide further information in response to Nokia's requests regarding essentiality of patent claims

Ratio Decidendi

InterDigital cannot amend its defence to plead the second limb of the ETSI 'essential' definition without advancing specific reasons or identifying relevant patents. Allegations of over-notification by Nokia, without evidence of deliberation or recklessness, are not relevant to the court's discretion to grant declaratory relief. InterDigital is not required to provide further information in the form requested by Nokia, as the existing pleadings and orders do not impose such an obligation.

Court Disposition

InterDigital's application to amend its defence to plead the second limb of the ETSI 'essential' definition is refused unless specific reasons are provided. The amendment alleging over-notification by Nokia is refused. InterDigital is not required to provide further information in the form requested by Nokia.

Orders

InterDigital may not amend its defence to plead the second limb of the ETSI 'essential' definition without cogent reasons and identification of relevant patents.
Amendment alleging over-notification by Nokia refused.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.