Case Nos: CA-2024-000489, CA-2024-000498, - [2025] EWCA Civ 1263

As amended, InterDigital’s appellant’s notice raised 7 grounds of appeal. InterDigital Ground 1 submitted that the right approach in law was the old test. It remained the right approach despite JC Bamford v Manitou and if that approach had been applied then the various items InterDigital contended should be redacted, would have been. InterDigital Ground 2 submitted that the judge wrongly applied the test in JC Bamford v Manitou and if he had applied that approach correctly then again, it would have led to the redactions sought by InterDigital. InterDigital Grounds 3 and 4 related to the redactions in class 1, contending that the legal test identified in the judgment was wrong in law, that on the right test the information would be redacted, and alternatively even if the legal test identified was the right approach, it was misapplied. InterDigital Ground 5 challenged the conclusion on reverse engineering as a reason for not redacting the unpacked per unit rates, which I have already dealt with. InterDigital Ground 6 (by amendment) contends that the judge ought to have redacted all of the figures for unpacked rates in Tables 9 and 10 (save for certain Optis licences) as well as the figures for totals and averages in Table 10, because failure to do so would undermine the confidentiality of InterDigital’s unpacked rates in the tables. InterDigital Ground 7 (by amendment) makes a further (confidential) point relating to the same redaction the subject of Grounds 3 and 4 and is best dealt with in that context.

Qualcomm advanced two grounds of appeal, in which Qualcomm Ground 1 broadly corresponds to InterDigital Ground 1 (that the right approach, still applicable, was the old test) and in which Qualcomm Ground 2 broadly corresponds to InterDigital Ground 2 (the judge erred in applying JC Bamford v Manitou since there is no valid distinction between lump sums and per unit rates). By a letter from their solicitors dated 11 July 2025 Qualcomm also explicitly supported the grounds advanced in Apple’s appellant’s notice of 10 July 2025.

Nokia’s Grounds 1 and 2 are the same as InterDigital Grounds 1 and 2. Nokia Ground 3 is the same as InterDigital Ground 5 (that the issue ought not to turn on the ease of reverse engineering). Nokia Ground 4 adds a further point, that the appearance of the unpacked rates in a judgment will mean that other people will treat the rates as reliable, and Nokia could not easily rebut that without revealing confidential information.

Google, Huawei and LG Electronics (together “GHL”) were represented by the same legal team for the purpose of this appeal and filed a single appellant’s notice. As amended GHL advanced 10 grounds. Grounds 1 to 6 relate to the same issue as InterDigital Ground 5 and Nokia Grounds 3 and 4. Grounds 7 and 8 (as amended) relate to the impact of other data in the tables along with the averages and totals. A point is also made about the order of the listing in Table 13 and the possible derivation of information from that. Grounds 9 and 10 (renumbered by amendment) relate to the similar issues which are the subject of InterDigital Grounds 3 and 4 and are best dealt with in that context.

In terms of grounds, Apple’s appellant’s notice seeks permission to advance the submissions which were in fact set out in a joint note by counsel for Apple and Optis filed with the court a few days before the hearing and which first raised the issue about the impact on the appellants of other data in the tables along with the averages and totals.