(1) Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. v (1) Nokia Corporation

Hearing date: 3 November 2025

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 3pm on 5 November 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

THE HON Mr Justice Mellor

INTRODUCTION

On 3 November 2025 I granted Orders sought by the Claimants (‘ WBD’) without notice to the Defendants for (a) a Confidentiality Order, (b) permission to serve these proceedings out of the jurisdiction on the Defendants and (c) an Order for Anti-Anti-Suit and associated relief (‘ AASI’), pursuant to three applications (together the ‘ Applications’). Since the current position is complex and fast-moving, both factually and in legal terms, and some precision is required, I indicated I would give my reasons in writing and this judgment contains my reasons.

This action and actions by the Defendants against one or more of the Claimants and/or associated companies in four jurisdictions (Brazil, Germany, the UPC and the US) were commenced on Saturday 1 November 2025, for reasons which are said to remain confidential. On Saturday evening I received the Applications Bundle and the Claimants’ detailed Skeleton Argument, and the remaining bundles on Sunday morning. I was able to carry out reasonably extensive reading on Sunday which culminated in a message which was conveyed by my clerk to the Claimants that I would commence the hearing at 10.30am on Monday 3 November 2025 but I would be assisted with submissions specifically directed to whether notice of the hearing (particularly of the AASI relief) should be given to the Defendants (collectively ‘ Nokia’ unless the context requires otherwise, in which case ‘ Nokia Corp’ or ‘ Nokia Tech’).

The hearing duly commenced at 10.30am on Monday 3 November 2025 and I heard brief argument on the terms of the Confidentiality Order (which I granted pro tem), more substantial argument on the Service Out Application, which I also granted, but reserving the position on the provisions as to alternative service until after I had determined the application for AASI relief which took up the bulk of the hearing which continued until 3pm.

The Applications were supported by the First, Second and Third Witness Statements of Michael Washbrook, a partner at the Claimants' solicitors and a First Witness Statement of Wolrad Prinz zu Waldeck und Pyrmont. Mr Washbrook made his Fourth Witness Statement on Sunday 2 November 2025 providing details of the claims commenced by Nokia in the four jurisdictions I mentioned above, even though none of them had been served on the Claimants and he was reporting details reported in the press, including the fact that Nokia is seeking urgent ex parte injunctive relief in the Rio de Janeiro actions which were filed at 00:00:02 (GMT-3). In response to my message, a Second Witness Statement of Wolrad Prinz zu Waldeck und Pyrmont was presented in draft, with a finalised version presented to me during the hearing.

Both witness statements from Wolrad Prinz zu Waldeck und Pyrmont were intended to and did assist me in understanding certain aspects of the procedure in the UPC and the German national courts, even though much of what he said was already familiar to me. Although he is not an independent witness, I agree that it was appropriate for foreign law evidence to be given in his witness statements.

I was supplied with an extensive and detailed Skeleton Argument which was primarily directed to the AASI relief, not least because the other two applications were dealt with in detail in Mr Washbrook's First and Third Witness Statements. The Skeleton drew my attention to all the relevant authorities. In my pre-reading, I was struck by the comprehensive and accurate account of the existing caselaw in this area contained in Mr Washbrook's witness statements and in the Skeleton Argument. In short, these applications appeared to me to be very well prepared.

Although it is necessary to summarise a lot of the background and the relevant legal principles, I will attempt to do it as succinctly as possible. With the relevant principles in mind, the AASI application came down to a relatively short point, which I detail below.

I should add at the outset that this application came at an awkward time, in the sense that I am still endeavouring to complete my judgment from a 4 day hearing in the Acer, ASUS & Hisense actions against Nokia, in which Nokia made their challenge to jurisdiction and the Claimants made their application for interim licence declaratory relief. Many of the considerations at play in those applications are likely to have application in this action in due course.

Furthermore, at 4pm on Friday 31 October 2025, the Court of Appeal handed down their judgment overturning my decision to grant interim licence declaratory relief in Samsung v ZTE and I have invited further submissions from the parties in Acer v Nokia to take account of that.

The parties

WBD are part of the Warner Bros. group of companies, a global media and entertainment business that produces and distributes a portfolio of content across television, film, streaming, interactive gaming and publishing. The First Claimant is the ultimate parent entity in the group, and the Second Claimant is a UK company which delivers content direct to consumers in the UK and other countries including in Europe, via online platforms.

WBD distributes branded audio-visual content that implement and/or interoperate with H.264 (AVC) and H.265 (HEVC) video coding recommendations (the ‘ Relevant Standards’) of the ITU-T.

The Defendants need little introduction. Suffice to say that Nokia owns or has a right to license a portfolio of patents that have been declared essential to or are required to implement the Relevant Standards (defined by WBD as the ‘ Codec SEP Portfolio’). WBD also referred to a second Nokia portfolio (‘ the Remaining Video Portfolio’) – ‘other patents declared essential to or required to implement other video coding standards, and those relevant to multimedia technologies and not considered by Nokia to be essential or required for implementation of the Relevant Standards’, with both portfolios referred to jointly as the ‘ Nokia Video Portfolio’.

The dispute and this action

WBD say this dispute arose following Nokia's announcement of their intention in 2022 to expand its bilateral licensing business to the video and multimedia industry. Although WBD did not feel able to provide me with any information about negotiations for reasons which are said to remain confidential, I infer that negotiations commenced in 2023.

This claim by WBD is in familiar form. It is an implementer-led claim for the determination of a RAND licence to the UK SEPs in Nokia's Codec SEP Portfolio. WBD's case is that such a licence would be global and would cover both encoding and decoding patents that are necessarily infringed when using the Relevant Standards and would include terms to ensure patent peace over the Nokia Video Portfolio more generally.

WBD's route to that relief is also in familiar form.

First, WBD seeks declarations of invalidity and/or non-essentiality in respect of two EP (UK) patents (‘the Challenged Patents’) owned by Nokia Tech (the ‘ Technical Patent Claims’).

Second, WBD seek relief in the ‘ RAND Claims’, as follows:

i) WBD asks this Court to determine the final terms of a RAND Licence to apply between WBD and Nokia to the UK SEPs. This includes a conditional request for the Court to determine the terms of an adjustable RAND licence on an interim inter partes basis, pending the final determination of RAND terms.

ii) WBD asks this Court to declare that by virtue of Nokia's RAND Commitment, it is required to offer the RAND Licence, including an adjustable RAND Licence if applicable, to WBD.

iii) In the event that Nokia refuses to offer WBD the final or interim, adjustable RAND Licence, WBD may seek an order that Nokia offers WBD the final or interim, adjustable RAND Licence.

iv) Also in the event that Nokia refuses to offer WBD the final or interim, adjustable RAND Licence, WBD may seek a declaration that Nokia (i) is in breach of its RAND Commitment; and (ii) is an unwilling licensor.

WBD has given an unequivocal undertaking to this Court to enter into the RAND Licence determined by this Court.

It is fair to say that WBD are seeking in this action the fullest extent of relief which they say is available and that point is relevant to my consideration of the AASI relief.

SERVICE OUT

I can briefly summarise the bases on which I was satisfied it was appropriate to grant permission to serve these proceedings out of the jurisdiction on both Defendants, although it is fair to say the focus of the claims is the Second Defendant which, on the evidence, is likely to be the owner of all relevant SEPs.

In his first witness statement, Mr Washbrook set out a full analysis of WBD's claim, F/RAND proceedings in the UK (including implementer-led claims), adjustable or ‘interim’ licence declarations (including the Court of Appeal decision in Samsung v ZTE [2025] EWCA Civ 1383), which was the background for WBD's contentions as to the relevant Gateways for service out. It is unnecessary to set all of that out. Suffice to say that I was entirely...