Lenovo Group Limited vs InterDigital Technology Corporation

This case concerned a jurisdictional dispute and an application to amend confidential particulars of claim in a patent licensing matter between Lenovo and InterDigital.

TLDR:

• Lenovo sought declarations of invalidity, non-essentiality, and non-infringement regarding two UK SEPs.
• InterDigital contested the jurisdiction and opposed the amendment of confidential particulars of claim.
• The court ruled in favor of Lenovo, allowing the amendment and upholding jurisdiction.

The claimants, Lenovo Group Limited and its subsidiaries, initiated proceedings against InterDigital Technology Corporation and its associated companies. The dispute arose from InterDigital's significant portfolio of patents, including standards-essential patents (SEPs) declared to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) and other standard-setting organizations (SSOs).

Lenovo sought to amend their confidential particulars of claim and requested the court to settle FRAND terms for a global license starting from January 1, 2024. InterDigital contested the jurisdiction and opposed the amendment application, arguing that the English courts did not have jurisdiction over the Portfolio Licence extending to other SEPs and non-essential patents (NEPs).

The court examined the merits of both applications. It found that Lenovo had a realistic prospect of success in their claim for a Portfolio Licence. The court emphasized that Lenovo's pleadings, although not perfect, were sufficient to disclose a claim with a reasonable prospect of success. The court also noted that Lenovo's argument was based on InterDigital's specific licensing practices and the ordinary meaning of 'discriminatory' in the context of FRAND commitments.

The court rejected InterDigital's argument that the claim for a Portfolio Licence failed the merits test. It concluded that Lenovo had articulated a claim that warranted further examination at trial. The court also addressed InterDigital's concerns about the clarity of Lenovo's pleadings, noting that while there were some drafting imperfections, they did not undermine the overall claim.

Regarding the alleged breaches of confidentiality undertakings and CPR 31.22, the court found that Lenovo's actions were inadvertent and did not warrant setting aside the order for service out. The court emphasized the importance of full and frank disclosure but concluded that Lenovo had not acted in bad faith.

In conclusion, the court upheld the jurisdiction and granted Lenovo permission to amend their confidential particulars of claim. This decision sets a significant precedent for future disputes involving FRAND commitments and the scope of patent licensing agreements.

Legal representatives: Mr. Michael Bloch KC, Mr. Ravi Mehta, and Mr. Femi Adekoya (instructed by Kirkland & Ellis International LLP) for the Claimants; Mr. Douglas Campbell KC and Ms. Joanne Box (instructed by Bird & Bird LLP) for the Defendants.

Judicial Panel: Mr. Justice Richards

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1036 (Pat)