Apple Retail UK Ltd & Ors v Qualcomm (UK) Ltd & Anor
The claim against Qualcomm (UK) Limited is dismissed by summary judgment as there is no real prospect of success: the ETSI IPR Policy and declarations do not impose FRAND licensing obligations on non-patent-owner affiliates. The claims against Qualcomm Incorporated relating to five specified patents (invalidity, non-essentiality, exhaustion) are properly served within the jurisdiction under CPR 63.14. The further competition law and breach of FRAND claims cannot be served out under Gateway 3 (anchor defendant claim fails) or Gateway 4A (patent claims not made 'in reliance on' a gateway). Gateway 9 (damage in jurisdiction) is not yet determined; further evidence is required to establish a...
- Parties
- Claimant: Apple Retail UK Limited; Claimant: Apple Distribution International; Claimant: Apple Operations Europe; Claimant: Apple GmbH; Claimant: Apple Retail Germany B. V. & Co. KG; Claimant: Apple Inc; Defendant: Qualcomm (UK) Limited; Defendant: Qualcomm Incorporated
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 22 May 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Civil (patents/competition) / Interlocutory Applications: Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Jurisdiction, Permission to Amend
- Outcome
- Summary judgment for First Defendant (Qualcomm UK); claims against Second Defendant (Qualcomm Inc) on five patents proceed; further claims not permitted to be served out except possibly under Gateway 9, pending further evidence.
- Legal Topics
- Standard Essential Patents (seps), FRAND Licensing, Jurisdiction and Service Out, Patent Exhaustion, Abuse of Dominant Position, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Contract Interpretation Under French Law
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Apple Retail UK Limited
Claimant
Apple Distribution International
Claimant
Apple Operations Europe
Claimant
Apple GmbH
Claimant
Apple Retail Germany B. V. & Co. KG
Claimant
Apple Inc
Claimant
Qualcomm (UK) Limited
Defendant
Qualcomm Incorporated
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil (patents/competition) / Interlocutory Applications: Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Jurisdiction, Permission to Amend
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the First Defendant (Qualcomm UK) is liable under ETSI IPR Policy or declarations for FRAND licensing obligations
- 2 Whether claims against the Second Defendant (Qualcomm Inc) relating to patents, exhaustion, and competition law can be served within/outside the jurisdiction
- 3 Whether the court should grant summary judgment/strike out against the First Defendant
Ratio Decidendi
The claim against Qualcomm (UK) Limited is dismissed by summary judgment as there is no real prospect of success: the ETSI IPR Policy and declarations do not impose FRAND licensing obligations on non-patent-owner affiliates. The claims against Qualcomm Incorporated relating to five specified patents (invalidity, non-essentiality, exhaustion) are properly served within the jurisdiction under CPR 63.14. The further competition law and breach of FRAND claims cannot be served out under Gateway 3 (anchor defendant claim fails) or Gateway 4A (patent claims not made 'in reliance on' a gateway). Gateway 9 (damage in jurisdiction) is not yet determined; further evidence is required to establish a...
Court Disposition
Summary judgment for First Defendant (Qualcomm UK); claims against Second Defendant (Qualcomm Inc) on five patents proceed; further claims not permitted to be served out except possibly under Gateway 9, pending further evidence.
Orders
- Summary judgment granted to Qualcomm (UK) Limited; claim against it dismissed.
- Claims against Qualcomm Incorporated relating to five specified patents (invalidity, non-essentiality, exhaustion) to proceed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment