Lenovo Group Limited & Ors v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) & Anor
[2024] EWHC 846 (Ch)
Interdigital Technology Corporation v Lenovo Group Limited
27 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 1578 (Pat)
High Court
Two companies fought over the price of using patented technology. A judge decided the price, adding interest for late payment, and one company was allowed to appeal parts of the decision.
Key Facts
- •InterDigital Technology Corporation and others (Claimants) sued Lenovo Group Limited and others (Defendants) for FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) licensing of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs).
- •The High Court determined a FRAND lump sum royalty of $138.7 million for the period 2007-2023.
- •The Court awarded InterDigital interest on the lump sum at 4% compounded quarterly, totaling $46.2 million.
- •The total payment Lenovo owes InterDigital is $184.9 million.
- •The case involved significant costs for both sides, approximately £17.25 million for InterDigital and £14.27 million for Lenovo.
- •Lenovo successfully challenged several aspects of InterDigital's analysis and was deemed the overall winner of the FRAND trial.
- •Outstanding issues included ongoing proceedings in Delaware, China, and Germany.
- •The Court granted permission to InterDigital to appeal specific points of principle relating to the FRAND determination.
Legal Principles
General approach to costs awards under CPR 44.2.
CPR 44.2 and notes, Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd v Asda Stores Ltd (No.2) [2012] EWCA Civ 494 at [26]-[31], Qualcomm v Nokia [2008] EWHC 777 at [6], F&C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Ltd v Barthelemy (No.3) [2012] EWCA Civ 843
Determining 'suitably circumscribed issues' for costs orders.
Unwired Planet v Huawei [2016] EWHC 410 (Pat)
Issues-based costs awards.
Fox v Foundation Piling Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 790, F&C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Ltd v Barthelemy (No.3) [2012] EWCA Civ 843, Pigot v Environment Agency [2020] EWHC 1444 (Ch)
FRAND obligation under ETSI IPR Policy.
ETSI IPR Policy
Permission to appeal requires a real prospect of success or other compelling reason.
CPR 52.6(1)
Outcomes
Awarded interest to InterDigital at 4% compounded quarterly on the $138.7 million lump sum.
The Court found that it was FRAND to award interest, reflecting the time value of money and discouraging licensee delay. The agreed rate in the draft licence was used.
Lenovo ordered to pay InterDigital's costs of the FRAND trial except for those relating to foreign law and interest issues.
Lenovo was deemed the overall winner of the FRAND trial. However, Lenovo's costs on foreign law and interest were disallowed due to their conduct and strategy.
FRAND Licence terms settled.
The Court addressed outstanding issues on the draft licence, clarified the position regarding ongoing foreign proceedings, and rejected Lenovo's attempts to include adjustment mechanisms.
Permission to appeal granted to InterDigital on several points of principle.
The Court recognized the importance of clarifying several points of principle regarding FRAND determinations which are of significant impact and because the FRAND Judgment is only the second instance where the English Court has determined a FRAND rate and terms.
Permission to cross-appeal granted to Lenovo on limitation issue.
The Court considered the points of principle raised by Lenovo’s cross-appeal regarding limitation periods in FRAND determinations.
Similar Cases
Lenovo Group Limited & Ors v Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1036 (Pat)
Lenovo Group Limited & Ors v Ericsson Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2941 (Pat)
Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors v Lenovo Group Limited & Ors
[2024] EWHC 742 (Pat)
Tesla, Inc & Anor v Idac Holdings, Inc & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1815 (Ch)