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

These proceedings started as a series of technical trials addressing the validity and scope of the Optis patents in issue. At least some Optis UK patents were found to be valid and essential (including on appeal) and so by the relevant time both sides wished to enter into a licence but could not agree on its terms. Disclosure included a large number of licences. By the time of the trial Optis had identified 9 licences in which it was a licensor which it contended were relevant. In 7 of these licences the royalty was or included a sum to be paid per unit expressed as a percentage of the sale price. In the other licences the licensee’s royalty was or included a lump sum. Google was the licensee in the only Optis lump sum licence. Also by the trial Apple had identified 19 licences in which it was a licensee, 14 of which it contended were relevant. In all 19 of these licences the royalty involved a lump sum to be paid by the licensee (Apple). Many of the Apple licences were in fact cross-licences and that needed to be taken into account, but for present purposes one can treat them as licences in which Apple is the relevant licensee. As part of the management of the proceedings and as in the previous FRAND cases, an extensive confidentiality regime was established. The result was that only representatives of the two parties – and the court – were able to see all the information.