HTC Corp v Nokia Corp [2013] EWHC B16 (Ch) (12 September 2013)

HTC Corp v Nokia Corp [2013] EWHC B16 (Ch) (12 September 2013)

Nokia does not have control over the Qualcomm documents within the meaning of CPR 31.8, as it cannot compel its solicitors to disclose them contrary to the US protective order. The English court lacks jurisdiction to order disclosure, and discretion would not be exercised to vary a US court order to the prejudice of Qualcomm.

Citation
[2013] EWHC B16 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: HTC; Defendant: Nokia; Third Party: Qualcomm; Third Party: Broadcom
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Patent Litigation / Disclosure Application Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application for disclosure refused
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Patent Infringement, Third Party Disclosure, Confidentiality Orders
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patent Validity Patent Infringement Third Party Disclosure Confidentiality Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HTC

Claimant

Nokia

Defendant

Qualcomm

Third Party

Broadcom

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Patent Litigation / Disclosure Application Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Nokia has control over Qualcomm documents for purposes of CPR 31.8
  2. 2 Whether English court should order disclosure contrary to US protective order

Ratio Decidendi

Nokia does not have control over the Qualcomm documents within the meaning of CPR 31.8, as it cannot compel its solicitors to disclose them contrary to the US protective order. The English court lacks jurisdiction to order disclosure, and discretion would not be exercised to vary a US court order to the prejudice of Qualcomm.

Court Disposition

Application for disclosure refused

Orders

  • No order for disclosure of Qualcomm documents
  • Parties may pursue variation of US protective order in American courts