Significant judgment on Standard Essential Patents handed down by the Court of Appeal

No items found.
​
October 23, 2018

EIP has today secured a judgment on behalf of its client Unwired Planet, in a case which has significant international implications for all patent holders and licensees of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs).

This morning the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in Unwired Planet v Huawei, upholding Mr Justice Birss’ decision. Notably, the Court of Appeal ruled that that a global SEP portfolio owner can meet its FRAND obligations by offering a worldwide licence, and if that offer is refused, then the implementor may be subject to an injunction preventing further infringements in the UK.

In assessing this, the Court commented that global licensing is efficient and aligns with world-wide cellular standards and sales of mobile phones. The Court noted that Mr Justice Birss correctly took into account the realities of the unnecessary costs and risks of country-by-country licensing and of industry practice when ruling that global licensing was FRAND.

The Court of Appeal also held that Unwired Planet had not discriminated against Huawei, and that the FRAND obligation did not amount to a “most favoured nation” approach to licensing. Instead, a SEP holder’s FRAND undertaking requires it to offer licences which reflect the proper valuation of its portfolio.

Huawei have indicated that they intend to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. Permission was refused by the Court of Appeal but it remains open to Huawei to seek permission from the Supreme Court itself.


Gary Moss, Head of Litigation at EIP, said:

“We are pleased by the outcome of the appeal. The court’s judgment confirms several important points of principle as to the appropriate scope and value of SEP licences. This provides global patent holders and licensees with a more efficient framework to help resolve SEP licensing issues.”


The EIP team comprised Gary Moss, Andrew Sharples, Angela Jack, Catherine Howell, Jack Dickerson and Owen Waugh.

Recent Case Reports

Bringing enforcement proceedings while an appeal is still pending risks liability for defendant’s costs
24 September 2026
The Court of Appeal held that setting aside a first-instance decision granting relief subject to recurring penalties generally has retroactive effect. Any penalty fees already paid will be refunded by the Court. The value of proceedings is determined by the interest of the party that brought the action. This is not changed as a result of an appeal. A claimant bringing enforcement proceedings while an appeal is still pending does so at its own risk and may be liable for the defendant’s costs related to the enforcement proceedings.‍
Unsigned Appeal Rejected as Inadmissible
24 September 2026
The Court of Appeal held that a statement of appeal that is not electronically signed is not validly lodged under Rule 4.1 RoP, and that this defect cannot be cured after expiry of the non-extendable appeal period. The appeal was therefore rejected as inadmissible, and a late application for re-establishment of rights was itself held to be out of time.
Scripps mRNA reengineering patent found invalid and not infringed by Comirnaty
08 September 2026
The Local Division Munich invalidated Promosome's licensed mRNA patent over Scripps' codon-optimisation method, then found BioNTech's Comirnaty vaccine would not have infringed the claims even had they been valid.