Nokia Technologies Oy & Anor v OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co, Ltd & Ors

Nokia Technologies Oy & Anor v OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co, Ltd & Ors

Oppo is not already licensed nor an ETSI Clause 6.1 Beneficiary; Clause 6.1 requires the patentee to make a FRAND offer capable of acceptance, not to grant a licence immediately. The patentee may choose between FRAND options, and Oppo's willingness is qualified by its insistence on Chongqing terms. Seeking an injunction is not an abuse of dominance as Oppo can avoid it by accepting FRAND terms set by the English court.

Parties
Claimant: Nokia Technologies Oy; Claimant: Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy; Defendant: OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd; Defendant: Unumplus Limited (t/a OnePlus); Defendant: Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp, Ltd; Defendant: Oppo Mobile UK Ltd; Defendant: Ascension International Trading Co.; Defendant: Realme Mobile Telecommunications (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd (t/a Realme); Defendant: Realme Chongqing Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and FRAND Determination / Post Technical Trial, Determination of Effect of Undertakings and Entitlement to Declarations
Outcome
Applicant's claims and declarations dismissed; respondent's position upheld.
Legal Topics
Standard Essential Patents (seps), FRAND Licensing, Abuse of Dominance, Stipulation Pour Autrui, Jurisdiction, Patent Injunctions
Intellectual Property Competition Law Contract Law Standard Essential Patents (seps) FRAND Licensing Abuse of Dominance Stipulation Pour Autrui Jurisdiction +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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nokia Technologies Oy

Claimant

Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy

Claimant

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd

Defendant

Unumplus Limited (t/a OnePlus)

Defendant

Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp, Ltd

Defendant

Oppo Mobile UK Ltd

Defendant

Ascension International Trading Co.

Defendant

Realme Mobile Telecommunications (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd (t/a Realme)

Defendant

Realme Chongqing Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and FRAND Determination / Post Technical Trial, Determination of Effect of Undertakings and Entitlement to Declarations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Oppo is already licensed under ETSI IPR Policy
  2. 2 Whether Oppo is an ETSI Clause 6.1 Beneficiary
  3. 3 Whether Oppo's commitment to Chongqing proceedings prevents injunction

Ratio Decidendi

Oppo is not already licensed nor an ETSI Clause 6.1 Beneficiary; Clause 6.1 requires the patentee to make a FRAND offer capable of acceptance, not to grant a licence immediately. The patentee may choose between FRAND options, and Oppo's willingness is qualified by its insistence on Chongqing terms. Seeking an injunction is not an abuse of dominance as Oppo can avoid it by accepting FRAND terms set by the English court.

Court Disposition

Applicant's claims and declarations dismissed; respondent's position upheld.

Orders

  • Oppo is not licensed under ETSI IPR Policy.
  • Oppo is not an ETSI Clause 6.1 Beneficiary.