- in Canada
- within Cannabis & Hemp, Law Practice Management and Criminal Law topic(s)
- with readers working within the Retail & Leisure industries
The High Court has rejected Nokia's objections to the English Court's jurisdiction and granted interim licence declarations running until October 1, 2026.
The case concerns Nokia's portfolio of standard-essential patents (SEPs) declared essential to the H.264/AVC and H.265/HEVC video coding standards administered by the ITU-T.
Acer, Hisense, and ASUS, as implementer claimants, have undertaken to accept licences to Nokia's SEP portfolio on terms the English Court determines to be RAND.
Nokia argued that no national court has authority to fix RAND terms between a SEP owner and a SEP licensee and that such disputes should be resolved, if not by agreement, through international arbitration. It further contended that any court's powers are territorially confined and that RAND terms, if being set by a court, must be set on a territory-by-territory basis.
Jurisdiction
The High Court rejected those submissions. In the absence of any contractual arbitration clause binding the claimants, RAND terms can only be determined by arbitration with their consent.
As to jurisdiction, the Court held the claims were properly brought under CPR Gateways 11, 16A, and 4A. Gateway 11 was satisfied because the claims seek to enforce a contractual obligation in respect of identified UK patents to grant a licence on RAND terms. That is a claim "wholly or principally" relating to property within the jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the requested licence is global in scope and extends to non‑UK patents.
On forum non conveniens, Nokia relied solely on a proposed arbitration as the alternative forum. The judge declined that invitation, noting the Court could not compel arbitration and that accepting Nokia's position would allow an offer to arbitrate to frustrate jurisdiction in almost every case.
Interim licences and international context
The judge devoted substantial attention to the interim licence declarations, not least to address ongoing SEP/RAND jurisdictional tensions between the English Courts and the UPC Mannheim Local Division and Munich I Regional Court in Amazon v InterDigital.
Endorsing the analysis of Meade J, the judge identified three sources of friction: first, misunderstandings or misdescriptions by litigants of the effect of foreign court orders, underscoring the need for accurate presentations and better judicial communication, particularly on ex parte applications; second, a mistaken perception that an English interim licence declaration operates as an anti-suit injunction or otherwise amounts to the English court telling foreign courts what to do—the judge was clear it does not; and third, a substantive divergence between the English contractual framing of RAND obligations and the German/UPC approach grounded in the unqualified exercise of patent rights, tempered only by competition law analysis pursuant to Huawei v ZTE (CJEU).
The Judge further observed that interim licence declarations are unlikely to deter SEP holders from bringing infringement proceedings where they consider that course advantageous, noting that experience shows SEP owners will pursue whatever strategy they believe best serves their interests.
Interim licence declaration
In the end, the Judge found Nokia in breach of their ITU-T Commitment and made the following interim license declaration : the sum payable for each interim licence comprises a lump sum calculated on the mid-point rate of $0.365 per device sold or to be sold over the term, that sum comprising a: (a) non-refundable amount calculated on the rate proposed by each claimant of $0.03; and (b) a refundable amount comprising the difference between that sum and the mid-point lump sum, which may be credited against whatever sum the Court decides is RAND at the final RAND trial.
Conclusion
The decision is a further affirmation of the English court's readiness to assume jurisdiction to set (F)RAND terms tied to UK patents within global portfolios and to use interim licence declarations to manage commercial uncertainty pending final determination.
Acer Incorporated & Ors v Nokia Technologies Oy [2025] EWHC 3331 (Pat)
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
