Mitsubishi Electric Corporation v Archos SA
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Mellor |
| Judgment Date | 04 March 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 493 (Pat) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HP-2019-000014 |
| Court | Chancery Division (Patents Court) |
| Date | 04 March 2021 |
[2021] EWHC 493 (Pat)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (ChD)
PATENTS COURT
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane
London, EC4A 1NL
THE HON Mr Justice Mellor
Case No: HP-2019-000014
Sarah Abram and Thomas Jones (instructed by Bird & Bird LLP) for the Claimants
Daniel Piccinin (instructed by Taylor Wessing LLP) for the Fourth to Eighth Defendants
Daniel Alexander QC, Colin West QC and William Duncan (instructed by Kirkland & Ellis International LLP) for the Ninth to Twelfth Defendants
Hearing date: 2 nd March 2021
APPROVED JUDGMENT
This is a ruling on one issue which has arisen in the course of this third CMC in an action concerning patents which are alleged to be essential to the 3G and 4G telecommunications standards and infringed by the remaining Defendants who fall into two groups. In common with the parties, I will refer to the fourth to eighth defendants as ‘Oppo’ and to the ninth to twelfth defendants as ‘Xiaomi’. This CMC is concerned with the FRAND aspects of the case.
The subject matter of this ruling is a narrow but potentially important point. It arises in the following circumstances.
The Claimants originally set out their case on FRAND in a Statement of Case dated 13 th March 2020. At this stage, the Claimants alleged that the MCP Pool licence was FRAND, as demonstrated by the fact that numerous implementers had signed up to its terms. The Claimants relied on 23 licenses they alleged to be comparable.
After the Defendants served their Responsive Statements of Case on FRAND in May 2020, the Claimants brought the matter back before Mann J at a second CMC in July 2020, complaining that the Defendants' Statements of Case were deficient. Mann J agreed and ordered the Defendants to serve revised Statements of Case on FRAND articulating their positive cases. These revised Statements of Case were served on 18 December 2020. As I understand the position, the reason for the delay was a dispute over confidentiality, on which Sir Alastair Norris gave a judgment on 9 th October 2020 and an appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 19 th November 2020, although a refinement to the confidentiality regime was suggested and has been adopted. The time taken up resolving those confidentiality issues has resulted in significant compression of the steps which needed to be taken in the lead up to this CMC.
Having received the Revised Responsive Statements of Case on FRAND from the two sets of Defendants, I understand that the Claimants wrote on 23 rd and 24 th December 2020 raising a series of questions arising from these revised statements of case. The Defendants rejected all criticisms by letters dated 6 th January 2021. Against that backdrop, the Claimants then served an extensive Reply Statement of Case on 9 th February 2021. Although the Defendants complain that the Reply Statement of Case sets out two new cases which ought to have been pleaded in the Claimants' original statement of case, they do not seek any relief in that regard.
Then on 12 th and 15 th February 2021, the Claimants served three Requests for Further Information (‘RFI’). One of the 12 th February RFIs was directed to Xiaomi and it is said raises over 100 individual requests.
The other RFI dated 12 th February is directed to Oppo's Revised Responsive Statement of Case on FRAND, and the RFI dated 15 th February is directed to Oppo's schedules to that Statement of Case. Between them the RFIs raise over 100 requests of Oppo.
Oppo have helpfully indicated by letter dated 26 February 2021 that they proposed to give a ‘narrative response’ to a considerable number of these requests but also indicated that they will refuse to answer some requests on the basis that they concern expert evidence which will be served in due course. Due to the volume of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (a company incorporated under the laws of Japan) v Archos SA (a company incorporated under the laws of France)
...for reasons to be given later. This judgment contains those reasons. 2 I previously heard CMC 3 on 2 nd March 2021 (Judgment at [2021] EWHC 493 (Pat)) and CMC 4 on 1 st April 2021 (giving rise to Judgments at [2021] EWHC 889 (Pat) and [2021] EWHC 918 (Pat)), both of which were on the FRAN......