Views on an evolving automotive industry – standards and essential patents

The automotive industry is unquestionably evolving at considerable pace whether through advances in connectivity and autonomy in vehicles, developments in the way that consumers access and use vehicles or changes driven by the ‘electric revolution’ and the industry disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Through Herbert Smith Freehills’ series of articles, “Views on an evolving automotive industry”, we look at some of the legal, regulatory and compliance issues that arise from or have been magnified by these unprecedented changes.

In the latest edition of that series, Andrew Moir, Ina vom Feld, Frédéric Chevallier, David Webb and Laura Adde of our London, Düsseldorf and Paris IP teams consider some of the key issues surrounding standard essential patents or SEPs for those in the automotive sector. These include, in particular, how standards work, their role in the Automotive sector, how fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing operates, and the risks of litigation and the varying approaches across Europe (in the UK, Germany and France in particular).

Connectivity is an increasingly important feature for vehicles and will be essential for the operation of autonomous vehicles. Connectivity through mobile networks, such as 3G, 4G and in future 5G, requires traditional automotive manufacturers to incorporate technologies from the telecoms industry into vehicles. These technologies are part of complex standards, and are protected by large portfolios of patents known as SEPs. Similarly, new standards are being developed such as Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) specifically to facilitate communications between vehicles and their surrounding infrastructure.

The licensing framework surrounding these SEPs is complex and requires owners to license on FRAND terms. Participants in the automotive sector need to be aware of the key issues surrounding FRAND licensing, and the particular difficulties that arise in the context of the automotive industry.

The UK Supreme Court has recently ruled that UK courts have jurisdiction to determine the terms of such FRAND licences worldwide, making the UK a key jurisdiction for FRAND disputes. The recent German Supreme Court decision has also provided important guidance, particularly as there have been a number of connected vehicle cases in the German courts in 2020.

Read the Standards and essential patents edition of the Views on an evolving automotive industry series here.

See our Automotive sector webpage for other editions in the series.

Key contacts and authors 

Roddy Martin

Roddy Martin
Global Head of Automotive, Partner, London
+44 20 7466 2255

Andrew Moir

Andrew Moir
Partner, IP, London
+44 20 7466 2773

Ina vom Feld

Ina vom Feld
Partner, IP, Dusseldorf
+49 211 975 5909

Frédéric Chevallier

Frédéric Chevallier
Partner, IP, Paris
+33 153 571360

David Webb

David Webb
Associate, IP, London
+44 20 7466 2629

Laura Adde

Laura Adde
Associate,IP, London
+44 20 7466 7491

Rachel Montagnon

Rachel Montagnon
Professional Support Consultant, London
+44 20 7466 2217

 

 

Technology Disputes: the wave of the future

Our IP and Cyber practice presented a series of six client webinars from May to September this year looking at areas where technology disputes were likely to arise. The last of these was a wide ranging panel session which PLC Magazine published as a feature article in their December edition entitled Technology Disputes: The wave of the future.

In this article Joel Smith, Andrew Moir, Dr. Ina vom Feld, Alexandra Neri, Kate Macmillan, Peter Dalton, David Webb and Rachel Montagnon explore some of the major trends and themes that have evolved around technology-related disputes, including:

  • Data class actions and their potential to shape the digital landscape;
  • Use of algorithms and AI and whether the current systems of IP rights can accommodate them satisfactorily;
  • Copyright in relation to internet content and how this may develop in the UK and the EU after the Brexit transition period;
  • FRAND licensing terms and how this may affect technology licensing disputes overall; and
  • Use of Trade Secret laws to protect and enforce rights in relation to new technology.

Our Tech Disputes team leads the way in helping clients to navigate multifaceted high-value technology disputes and in assisting businesses to minimise their exposure to risk.

If you would like to watch any of the Tech Disputes webinar series on-demand, please follow the links below:

Authors

Joel Smith

Joel Smith
Partner, Head of IP UK, London
+44 20 7466 2331

Andrew Moir

Andrew Moir
Partner, Global Head of Cyber and Data Security, London
+44 20 7466 2773

Ina vom Feld

Ina vom Feld
Partner, IP, Dusseldorf
+49 211 975 59091

Kate Macmillan

Kate Macmillan
Consultant, IP and Cyber Security, London
+44 20 7466 3737

Alexandra Neri

Alexandra Neri
Partner, IP, Paris
+33 1 53 57 78 30

Peter Dalton

Peter Dalton
Senior Associate, IP and Cyber Security, London
+44 20 7466 2907

Laura Adde

Laura Adde
Associate, IP, London
+44 20 7466 7491

David Webb

David Webb
Associate, IP, London
+44 20 7466 2629

Rachel Montagnon

Rachel Montagnon
Professional Support Consultant, IP, London
+44 20 7466 2217

 

Jurisdictional tussling: the UK is open for business on FRAND

The recent Supreme Court decision in Unwired Planet v Huawei (see our reporting here and PLC Magazine article here) answered many important questions about the UK court’s approach to FRAND disputes. However, it also left areas of uncertainty, particularly on the issue of jurisdiction. The High Court decision in Philips v TCL ([2020] EWHC 2553 (Ch)), handed down around a month after the Supreme Court’s judgment, confirms that the UK will take an expansive approach to its jurisdiction to determine FRAND licence terms. Indeed, it is unclear under what circumstances (if any) the UK courts will cede jurisdiction to another national court.

Background

Philips commenced proceedings in the UK against TCL on 30 October 2018 for patents it claimed were (and are now accepted to be) essential to the 3G and 4G standards. Its particulars of claim confirmed that it was willing to license those patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.

On 19 February 2019 TCL commenced proceedings in France for the determination of FRAND licence terms under Philips’ undertaking to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). The ETSI undertaking is governed by French law.

On 5 July 2019 Philips served a FRAND statement of case in the UK, setting out what it considered to be FRAND terms. On 19 July 2019 it submitted a written challenge to the jurisdiction of the French court under, inter alia, Articles 29 and 30 of the Brussels I Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (the “Brussels Regulation”) essentially on the basis that the French and English proceedings had the same cause of action between the same parties and the English court was first seised.

The French court delivered its judgment on 6 February 2020. It rejected Philips’ jurisdictional challenge, confirming that the French courts had jurisdiction to hear the dispute. Philips filed an appeal to that judgment which is due to be heard on 15 February 2021. Judgment in the main French proceedings (assuming the appeal fails) is expected in late 2022 or early 2023, which is after one of the patents in suit in the English proceedings expires.

The decision

On 9 April 2020 TCL issued an application for a stay of “all aspects of [the UK proceedings] concerning [Philips’] FRAND licensing obligations”. The judgment of Mr Justice Mann was issued in relation to that application. In its application TCL asked that the UK proceedings be stayed under Articles 29 and 30 of the Brussels Regulation.

Article 29

Article 29 states that “where proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties are brought in the courts of different Member States, any court other than the court first seised shall of its own motion stay its proceedings until such time as the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established”.

TCL argued that although the English proceedings had been commenced first, the issue of appropriate FRAND licence terms had not arisen until Philips served its FRAND pleadings, which it did after the French proceedings had been commenced. Accordingly, TCL argued that the French courts were first seised with the FRAND licensing issues. A key basis for TCL’s argument was that the French courts had already ruled in favour of French jurisdiction on the basis that the French courts were first seised and so the English court must give effect to that judgment.

Philips, on the other hand, argued that the French court had not decided that it was first seised but rather that the issues in dispute in the two proceedings were different and therefore Article 29 was not engaged. The basis for this interpretation being that the English proceedings concerned infringement of UK patent rights (and the FRAND determination merely arose as a consequence of TCL raising a FRAND defence), while the French proceedings were contractual in nature.

Mr Justice Mann preferred Philips’ interpretation of the French judgment. In particular, he noted that this was consistent with the UK Supreme Court’s characterisation of FRAND proceedings that the key issue in dispute is one of UK patent rights (the FRAND aspects of the proceedings apparently being ignored for the purposes of considering jurisdiction). Accordingly the Article 29 challenge failed at that stage.

Mann J nevertheless went on to consider when the issue of a FRAND licence determination first arose in the English proceedings. His view was that Philips’ original statements of case clearly brought the issue of a FRAND licence determination into play in the UK proceedings. The fact that it later served a specific FRAND statement of case was to further particularise its position on appropriate FRAND licence terms, but it did not raise a new issue in the proceedings. He therefore held that the English court would have been first seised with the FRAND issues if those issues had been the same as those in France.

Article 30

Article 30 states that “Where related actions are pending in the courts of different Member States, any court other than the court first seised may stay its proceedings” where there is a “risk of irreconcilable judgments”.

Given that Mann J had already found that the English court was first seised the Article 30 challenge failed immediately as there was therefore no jurisdiction for it to stay proceedings under Article 30 (because article 30 only applies to courts “other than the court first seised”). Mann J nevertheless went on to consider the position if he were wrong about the English court being first seised.

Following UK Court of Appeal authority, he found that even if the proceedings only became “related” within the meaning of Article 30 at the point when Philips served its FRAND statement of case, the fact that the UK proceedings were commenced first still meant that the English court was first seised and so there was still no discretion to order a stay.

Although not determinative given Mann J’s previous findings, he also considered evidence from Philips’ French law expert that there was serious doubt about whether the French court would in fact determine FRAND terms. Along with that point, he also considered relevant the fact that the English court would be in a position to decide on the issue imminently, while any French judgment would take another two years and, importantly, would be given after expiry of one of the patents in dispute.

Mann J therefore decided that, even if he did have discretion to order a stay under Article 30, he would exercise that discretion against ordering a stay. The only point he considered weighed in favour of the French court determining FRAND terms was the fact that the ETSI undertaking was governed by French law. However, Mann J noted that “English courts are well used to construing foreign contracts, with the aid of evidence from foreign lawyers, and this contract is no exception”.

Analysis

Given this judgment, it is hard to envisage a situation where the English courts would cede jurisdiction to another national court to determine FRAND licence terms where English infringement proceedings are afoot.

Although in this case Mann J found that the UK courts were first seised, he made clear that even if that were not the case then (1) the Article 29 challenge would fail because the issues in dispute in the English and French proceedings were different and (2) he would have exercised his discretion under Article 30 against a stay. Therefore, even where English proceedings are commenced after those in another national courts, it seems possible that the courts will still refuse to stay the English proceedings.

This decision is another example of the English court’s expansive approach to jurisdiction in FRAND cases. It remains to be seen whether there will be any circumstances in which the court will cede jurisdiction. Ultimately, it may then become a question of which national court can give judgment on appropriate FRAND licence terms first and the risk of conflicting judgments is clear.

 

Andrew Moir

Andrew Moir
Partner, Intellectual Property and Global Head of Cyber & Data Security
+44 20 7466 2773

David Webb

David Webb
Associate, London
+44 20 7466 2629

FRAND patent licensing: Supreme Court stays the course

Andrew Moir and David Webb have today published an article about the recent Supreme Court FRAND decision in Unwired Planet in PLC Magazine.

This article first appeared in the October 2020 issue of PLC Magazine.

The article analyses the Supreme Court’s judgment, which provides welcome guidance on the UK’s approach to FRAND licensing, much of which will be welcomed by standard essential patent owners. You can also find an in depth summary of the case in our separate blog post.

Please do not hesitate to contact the authors if you would like to discuss this decision and its implications in more detail.

Andrew Moir

Andrew Moir
Partner, Intellectual Property and Global Head of Cyber & Data Security
+44 20 7466 2773

David Webb

David Webb
Associate, London
+44 20 7466 2629

UK Supreme Court stays the course in Unwired Planet and Conversant – confirming the approach to FRAND adopted by the lower courts

On 26 August 2020 the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in Unwired Planet v Huawei [2018] EWCA Civ 2344 (the “Unwired Planet Appeal”) and Conversant v Huawei and ZTE [2019] EWCA Civ 38 (the “Conversant Appeal”). The Unwired Planet Appeal concerned the courts’ jurisdiction to determine global FRAND (Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory) licence terms, the meaning of the ‘non-discrimination’ element of FRAND and an SEP (Standard Essential Patent) owner’s right to an injunction. The issue in the Conversant Appeal was whether England was the appropriate forum to hear such a FRAND case in the circumstances of that case (further explained below). Continue reading

Tech Disputes webinar series (Episode 1: FRAND 2.0 – licensing in a world of new standards)

The increasing use of IoT, AI, big data, and smart technology is giving rise to complex, multi-jurisdictional disputes over IP, technology, software and data ownership.

At Herbert Smith Freehills our Tech Disputes team leads the way in helping clients to navigate multifaceted high-value technology disputes and in assisting businesses to minimise their exposure to risk. Starting on 20 May, we will be hosting a series of webinars on the legal issues to consider in the connected and digital world we live and work in, hosted by expert speakers from our intellectual property, data and cyber security practices. We will continue to add further webinars to this series to share additional perspectives from our global team.

Please join us for some or all of the series. Each webinar will last around 30 mins (plus Q&A).


FRAND 2.0 – licensing in a world of new standards

Wednesday 20 May 10am (UK time)

The law and practice around FRAND has evolved significantly since the days of disputes around standards such as recordable compact discs, 2G and 3G. With the advent of newer mobile telecoms standards such as 5G, as well as standards in new contexts (such as the internet of things and connected autonomous vehicles) and the fresh round of licensing that inevitably will follow, there is an opportunity to shape best practice still further.

In this presentation we focus on some of the practical guidance issued by the courts as to how to approach FRAND negotiations, focussing on Germany, France and the UK. What should prospective licensors and licensees do differently this time for forthcoming licensing negotiations on new standards? Are we in a better position now to avoid some of the previous challenges, such as patent hold-up and hold-out?

Register here to access a recording of this webinar on-demand. 

Speakers
Andrew Moir

Andrew Moir
Partner, Global Head of Cyber and Data Security, London
+44 20 7466 2773

Frederic Chevallier

Frederic Chevallier
Partner, IP, Paris
+33 1 53 57 13 60

Ina vom Feld

Ina vom Feld
Partner, IP, Dusseldorf
+49 211 975 59091

David Webb

David Webb
Associate, IP, London
+44 20 7466 2629

 

Patent and Pharma Update, February 2020

Key recent developments in the United Kingdom and Europe relating to patents and the pharmaceutical sector

In this issue we report on the Supreme Court decision of Shanks v Unilever on employee inventor compensation. We update on two CJEU decisions relation to public access to documents submitted to the EMA and a key competition decision on “pay-for-delay” agreements. We cover a string of patent-related UK Court of Appeal cases, including Ablynx v VHSquared on jurisdiction, Anan Kasei v Neo on insufficiency and joint tortfeasorship and L’Oreal v Liqwd on claim amendments and admission of late evidence. We provide brief updates from the EPO on the recent CRISPR priority decision, as well as its AI inventorship decision. We have bumper SPC and FRAND updates covering key Court of Appeal and CJEU decisions in respect of SPCs and a string of interesting interim decisions in the UK in the case of FRAND. We round off the issue with a link to our new IP podcast series and updates on Brexit and the UPC. Continue reading

Herbert Smith Freehills’ Intellectual Property Podcasts – Episode 1: An Introduction to FRAND

We are pleased to share the first episode in our Intellectual Property Podcast series of interviews, discussions and thought pieces from our leading global IP practice.

Episode 1: An introduction to FRAND – presented by Rachel Montagnon and David Webb.

The UK Supreme Court is soon expected to hand down its judgment in the appeals of Unwired Planet v Huawei and ZTE v Conversant, concerning FRAND, which were heard together. In advance of the decision itself, this podcast provides a reminder of what FRAND is all about (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms required in the licensing of standard essential patents) and what issues are before the Court, as well as some background to the individual disputes.

We will provide updates on our blog and publish a further podcast once the Supreme Court has given its judgment.

Rachel Montagnon

Rachel Montagnon
Professional Support Consultant, IP
+44 20 7466 2217

David Webb

David Webb
Associate
+44 20 7466 2629

Coming up in our Intellectual Property Podcast series…


Episode 2: ‘Plausibility’ in patent law

Andrew Wells (winner of the AIPPI UK prize for the best contribution to the 2019 patents study question, on plausibility) discusses:

– The concept of ‘plausibility’ in patent law
– The EPO approach to inventive step and plausibility
– How plausibility arises in insufficiency arguments
– The approach of the English courts
– The future for the concept of plausibility in patent law
– Practical implications for innovators and patentees


Episode 3: Architects’ copyright

Rachel Montagnon and Joanna Silver discuss the problems associated with the use of architects’ designs where specific permissions are not in place, and the impact on development projects, including:

– What sort of works attract copyright?
– How could these copyright works be infringed?
– Who owns copyright in architects’ designs?
– What licences can be implied if no agreement is in place?
– Termination of engagement and insolvency situations
– Escrow and collateral warranties
– Moral rights
– What relief can architects claim?

THE COURT OF APPEAL MAKES FRIENDS WITH SEP HOLDERS

Unwired Planet International Limited v Huawei Technologies Co. Limited [2018] EWCA Civ 2344

The Court of Appeal has endorsed the approach taken by Birss J at the first instance in relation to determining fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) royalties and the rights and obligations of parties negotiating licences for standard essential patents (SEPs), dismissing Huawei’s appeal in its entirety.   Continue reading