Success for EIP litigation team and client Optis against Apple

No items found.
​
October 22, 2020
#
Litigation
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

Last Friday, 16October 2020, judgment was handed down by Mr Justice Birss in the High Court, London, in the first of four technical trials listed in EIP client Optis’ UK patent litigation and long-standing licensing dispute against Apple.[1] Two non-technical trials focusing on licencing issues are also in the court’s diary.

The four technical trials all concern patents from Optis’ portfolio of standard essential patents. In this first test of the strength of that portfolio Optis were successful in establishing that its patent (EP (UK) 1,230,818) was valid and essential to the process of handing over a mobile telephone from a 4G or a 3G network to a 2G network (a process important in ensuring network coverage as mobile phone users move between locations).

The patent had previously been successfully asserted against Huawei and Samsung but had been subjected to new arguments from Apple who relied upon prior art that had not featured in that earlier litigation.

The trial was highly unusual in that it commenced on 5 October with closing argument finishing on the 13 October, yet the Judge produced his fully reasoned judgment, running to 214 paragraphs in less than three days.This was because the 818 patent expired on 20 October and a pre-trial hearing, the court had indicated that, were the patent to be found valid and essential, the Court would consider granting an injunction against Apple for the short, remaining life of the patent.In the event this did not prove necessary as shortly before judgment was handed down Apple undertook that, subject to certain the Court making additional findings at a subsequent trial scheduled for July 2021, and the Court determining that one or more Optis patents was valid and essential, Apple would enter into a FRAND licence as determined by the Court.

Gary Moss, EIP’s Head of Litigation said: “Technical success at the first opportunity combined with the undertaking provided by Apple is a significant step forward in Optis’ battle to secure proper compensation for Apple’s use of its portfolio consistent with its ETSI undertakings. EIP is pleased to have been able to represent Optis in this matter and to help it achieve this early success in these proceedings and a step forward in the long running dispute.”

Counsel acting for Optis were Adrian Speck Q.C., Mark Chacksfield Q.C. and Thomas Jones all of the Chambers of Mr James Mellor Q.C. 8 New Square, Lincolns Inn.

The EIP team on the technical case was Robert Lundie Smith, Joanne Welch, Jack Dickerson, David Brinck, Jerome Spaargaren, Sunny Bansal and Stephanie Harris.

The EIP team dealing with non-technical / injunction issues was Gary Moss, Kathleen Fox Murphy, and Catherine Howell.

Arty Rajendra of Osborne Clarke acted as co-Counsel on the case.


[1] Optis Cellular Technology LLC, Optis Wireless Technology LLC and Unwired Planet International Ltd v Apple Retail UK Ltd., Apple Distribution International Ltd and Apple Inc. (HP-2019-000006).

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
​
Litigation insurance as security for costs
30 March 2026
In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.
​
National law applies to claims for loss of profit if the events occurred before the UPC came into force
30 March 2026
In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.
​