This page gives a brief summary of current UK standard essential patent proceedings. To be updated whenever I have the time and inclination. I will try to link to handed-down judgments and some relevant coverage. Do let me know if you have any up to date info to be added.
My previous post in relation to an AIPPI event on the Unwired Planet Court of Appeal judgment was continuing to receive a few views for its summary of UK FRAND proceedings, so now it gets its very own page.
[Ed: Last updates added on 14th June 2019]
Unwired Planet v Huawei
Will be heard by the Supreme Court in late 2019, Judgment likely early 2020.
Conversant v Huawei & ZTE
Mr Justice Henry Carr’s decision to grant jurisdiction went on appeal (EPLaw) and was upheld by the Court of Appeal (Judgment). A further appeal is now also due to be heard by the Supreme Court in conjunction with the UP v Huawei appeal.
The judgment from the first technical trial is now available. EP (UK) 1797659 was found invalid for added matter (bailii).
Apple v Qualcomm
Delayed following a successful jurisdiction challenge. See coverage by Bird & Bird as to the reasons why Conversant’s claim was able to continue but Apple’s was stayed.
A pending appeal from the decision of Morgan J was dismissed following the global settlement between the parties.
Philips v Asus & HTC
An appeal is now pending, currently fixed to be heard on 28th October 2019. Given the estimated length of 25 hours this is likely two or more of the technical trials.
There does not currently seem to be any sign of a FRAND trial.
HTC originally pleaded a pass-through license via Qualcomm (/ the benefit of an undertaking not to sue) to the patents asserted by Philips, but this argument was unsuccessful at first instance and on appeal.
The technical trials have all now taken place at first instance:
-  EWHC 1826(Pat) (valid and infringed);
-  EWHC 1732(Pat) (invalid);
-  EWHC1224 (Pat) (valid and infringed)
Philips v Tinno
No reported hearings (/Settled?)
Tinno are a behind the scenes ODM manufacturer, producing devices on behalf of other companies, much like HTC did when it was first starting out on the European market.
It’s probably safe to assume this action relates to telecoms patents, potentially including the EP826 and EP224 patents Philips asserted against HTC, which will now benefit from a certificate of contested validity.
TQ Delta v Zyxel
Awaiting a RAND trial in September. No further comment!
IPCom v Vodafone
IPCom have recently requested an expedited trial in relation to one 3G SEP and one 4G SEP. The first technical trial is now due for the end of November 2019.
Any FRAND trial would not now take place until after the Supreme Court’s UP decision is available in 2020.
PanOptis v Apple
PanOptis have sued Apple in respect of a number of SEPs in relation to High-Efficiency Video Coding. HEVC could be one of the major FRAND battlegrounds in the coming years as video streaming and playback has become central to the functionality of mobile devices.
Vestel v HEVC Advance
This case is of a somewhat different character to those above. Vestel are suing the HEVC patent pool HEVC advance on a strict competition law basis, with no accompanying attempt to invalidate any of the pool’s patents. Bristows say:
“Vestel claims that offers made by both HEVC Advance and the representative licensor constitute excessive pricing, contrary to Article 102 TFEU. Its primary basis for this claim is that another patent pool covering the same standard, MPEG LA, is said to contain a higher number of declared SEPs while offering licences at a lower royalty rate than HEVC. Vestel also claims that some 1,581 SEPs in the HEVC pool are also in the MEPG pool, to which Vestel has already taken a licence. Vestel has made a counter-offer to HEVC Advance which it says takes into account the lower rates in the MPEG LA pool and the overlapping patents.”
Mitsubishi / Sisvel v Lots of people
These proceedings have been issued but not served so far as I am aware. The Sivel patent litigated in Germany recently was EP1119997, which is involved in 3G/4G – given the successful finding in validity in that litigation the same patent may well be involved here.