Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
- Thomas Jones (instructed by Enyo Law) for the Claimant
- Andrew Lykiardopoulos QC and James Segan (instructed by Powell Gilbert) for the First and Second Defendants
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
Unwired Planet International Ltd v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd & Anor
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
Judgment in a FRAND trial was handed down on 5th April 2017, comprising two judgments: one confidential judgment (the 705 judgment) and a public version (the 711 judgment) which summarized the reasoning while omitting confidential details. The court faced complex confidentiality issues because different parts of the material were confidential to different parties, including legal representatives who could not share all details with their clients. The court initially produced a public judgment that fairly reflected the reasoning but with redactions, with further hearings anticipated to resolve confidentiality definitively. The current judgment represents the final resolution of confidentiality claims relating to the trial judgment.
The information sought to be redacted primarily concerns commercial licensing information related to patents essential to telecommunications standards, involving parties including Unwired Planet, Huawei, Samsung, and Ericsson, as well as third parties like Apple, Qualcomm, and ZTE. Ericsson had a unique procedural posture, having participated fully until mid-2016 before withdrawing, but retaining a financial interest in the outcome.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether and to what extent commercial licensing information related to standard-essential patents should be redacted from the public judgment, balancing principles of open justice against confidentiality and commercial interests.
- The proper application of legal principles governing confidentiality and redactions in judgments, particularly in the context of FRAND disputes and related competition law claims.
- The extent to which the public must have access to underlying data supporting the court's conclusions, especially regarding FRAND royalty rates.
- The relevance of the parties' relationships to the information and the proceedings in assessing confidentiality claims.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R (Willford) v Financial Services Authority [2013] EWCA Civ 674 |
Principles of open justice require judgments to be published in full unless overriding grounds exist. |
Established the strong presumption in favor of publication and the rarity of justified redactions. |
| R (Mohamed) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) [2011] QB 218 |
Redactions from judgments should be "rare indeed" and only for "powerful reasons". |
Supported the stringent standard for confidentiality claims in judgments. |
| Lilly ICOS No 2 [2002] EWCA Civ 2 |
Distinction between confidentiality of trial material not in judgment and material forming part of reasons. |
Guided the court's approach to confidentiality of non-judgment trial material. |
| Sainsbury v Mastercard [2016] CAT 11 |
Competition law decisions often redact commercial information such as pricing to protect legitimate business interests. |
Illustrated accepted practice of redacting commercial details in competition law contexts, influencing the court's view on licensing information. |
| Microsoft v Motorola (USA) |
Recognition that open justice principles may yield to confidentiality in FRAND-related licensing terms. |
Provided persuasive authority that confidential licensing terms can be protected in FRAND disputes. |
| HTC v Nokia [2013] EWHC 3247 (Pat) |
Confidential annexes to judgments may include licensing terms and reasoning to protect confidentiality. |
Supported the approach of redacting sensitive licensing information while preserving the judgment’s reasoning. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court acknowledged the fundamental principle of open justice requiring judgments to be public and comprehensible, but recognized that rare, powerful reasons supported by cogent evidence may justify redactions. The court considered the nature of the information sought to be redacted—commercial licensing terms related to telecommunications patents—and the potential harm publication would cause to the competitive positions of licensors and licensees. The court evaluated the parties’ evidence demonstrating that disclosure would materially weaken licensors’ negotiating strength and harm legitimate business interests.
The court rejected arguments that the redacted information could mislead the public or that certain parties should be treated as uninvolved third parties, noting Ericsson’s active participation and ongoing financial interest. While the public could see the court’s ultimate conclusions on FRAND royalty rates, the underlying data was redacted, which limited public scrutiny but was justified by the risk of harm to competition.
The court applied established principles from precedent, balancing the public interest in transparency against the risk of competitive harm, and found that the redactions were justified with few exceptions. The court also considered but rejected broader redactions sought for historic licenses and certain other paragraphs where the risk of harm was not sufficiently demonstrated.
Holding and Implications
The court’s final decision was to UPHOLD THE REDACTIONS sought for substantial parts of the commercial licensing information in the 705 judgment, subject to limited exceptions where redactions were reduced or rejected. The public judgment will be issued in a redacted form consistent with this decision.
The direct effect is that the public will have access to the court’s reasoning and conclusions on FRAND terms, but significant commercial details underlying those conclusions will remain confidential to protect competitive interests. No new precedent was established beyond applying existing principles to the particular facts of this case. The judgment reflects a careful balance between open justice and protecting commercially sensitive information in complex FRAND litigation.
Click here to read the full judgment