Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp, Ltd & Ors.

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp, Ltd & Ors.

There is a sufficiently imminent threat that the defendants may seek anti-suit relief in the PRC, which would be vexatious and unconscionable, justifying quia timet relief. The anti-suit injunction is appropriate but must be limited to the PRC and exclude the word 'interfere', and enforcement of a Chinese rate-setting judgment is not to be restrained. No material lack of full and frank disclosure was found.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: Koninklijke Philips N.V.; Defendant/respondent: Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp, Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Oppo Mobile UK Ltd; Defendant/respondent: OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Unumplus Limited (t/a OnePlus); Defendant/respondent: Oplus Mobiletech UK Limited; Defendant/respondent: Reflection Investment B.V.; Defendant/respondent: Realme Mobile Telecommunications (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Realme Chongqing Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Ascension International Trading Co., Limited (t/a realme)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and SEP FRAND Licensing / Inter Partes Hearing on Continuation of Anti Suit Injunction
Outcome
Anti-suit injunction granted, modified to exclude 'interfere' and limited to PRC; undertakings to the court may be accepted instead of injunction; permission to appeal refused; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Standard Essential Patents, FRAND Licensing, Anti Suit Injunctions, Comity, Full and Frank Disclosure, Quia Timet Relief
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patent Infringement Standard Essential Patents FRAND Licensing Anti Suit Injunctions Comity Full and Frank Disclosure +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 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Koninklijke Philips N.V.

Claimant/applicant

Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp, Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Oppo Mobile UK Ltd

Defendant/respondent

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Unumplus Limited (t/a OnePlus)

Defendant/respondent

Oplus Mobiletech UK Limited

Defendant/respondent

Reflection Investment B.V.

Defendant/respondent

Realme Mobile Telecommunications (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Realme Chongqing Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Ascension International Trading Co., Limited (t/a realme)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and SEP FRAND Licensing / Inter Partes Hearing on Continuation of Anti Suit Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a sufficiently imminent threat of the defendants seeking anti-suit relief in the PRC courts to justify quia timet relief
  2. 2 Whether the anti-suit injunction should be continued, modified, or discharged
  3. 3 Whether there was material lack of full and frank disclosure at the ex parte hearing

Ratio Decidendi

There is a sufficiently imminent threat that the defendants may seek anti-suit relief in the PRC, which would be vexatious and unconscionable, justifying quia timet relief. The anti-suit injunction is appropriate but must be limited to the PRC and exclude the word 'interfere', and enforcement of a Chinese rate-setting judgment is not to be restrained. No material lack of full and frank disclosure was found.

Court Disposition

Anti-suit injunction granted, modified to exclude 'interfere' and limited to PRC; undertakings to the court may be accepted instead of injunction; permission to appeal refused; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Defendants restrained from seeking relief in PRC courts that would restrain, prevent, require withdrawal of, or penalise Philips for pursuing the UK action, excluding enforcement of Chinese rate-setting judgments.
  • Relief limited to PRC, not worldwide.