Nokia prevails in latest SEP clash
UK court finds in favour of the Finnish phone maker in standard-essential patents dispute | Litigation battle with Chinese rival continues.
Nokia has won the latest instalment of a global patent battle with Chinese smartphone manufacturer Oppo.
In a judgment handed down on January 16, the High Court of England and Wales ruled that Oppo had infringed one of Nokia’s standard-essential patents (SEPs) through the sale of mobile phones with 4G/long-term evolution (LTE) and 5G functionality.
Oppo 'unwilling' to renew licence
After the hearings, held in November and December last year, Justice Richard Meade dismissed Oppo’s claim that patent number EP2981103 was invalid.
It relates to the allocation of preamble sequences, part of the access procedure in a mobile communication system.
Oppo’s claims included that the patent was obvious over two pieces of prior art, contained added matter, and was invalid on the basis of excluded subject matter.
However, Justice Meade found that the patent was valid and had been infringed by the 4G and 5G functionality in Oppo’s phones.
Nokia welcomed the decision, stating that: “Oppo has been unwilling to renew its licence on fair and reasonable terms and made no royalty payments to Nokia for 18 months. Several courts in Europe have found Oppo has infringed Nokia’s patented technologies in its smartphones and confirmed that Nokia has acted fairly.
“It is time for Oppo to play by the rules and renew their licence on fair terms.”
In a statement, an Oppo spokesperson said that the company was “disappointed” with the court’s decision and would seek permission to appeal in due course.
“Oppo has committed to enter into a licence with Nokia on the FRAND terms that will be set by the Chongqing Court in the ongoing rate setting proceedings between the parties.
“Nokia has so far been unwilling to renew its licence with Oppo on fair and reasonable terms, but Oppo hopes that Nokia will now fully engage with the Chongqing proceedings and confirm that it will honour its FRAND undertaking by similarly committing to enter into a licence on the terms set, in order that this dispute can be brought to an end.”
The validity of the patent at the centre of the UK case had already stood up to testing in Germany in a revocation action brought by Daimler, and in the Netherlands in another case with Oppo.
In that instance, the District Court of The Hague had similar findings to Justice Meade, ruling in September 2022 that the Dutch equivalent of the patent “was inventive inter alia […], did not contain added matter, and was not invalid for excluded subject matter”.
Trading blows
The decision is the latest in a costly global battle between the two smartphone giants over licence terms regarding Nokia’s patents. It is the first of three SEP trials between Oppo and Nokia in the UK.
In November last year, the English High Court ruled that Oppo had infringed Nokia’s implementation patent (EP3716560) that covered the processing of transmission signals. The dispute centred on the operation of chips inside Oppo phones, which were manufactured and supplied by Qualcomm.
Due to the confidentiality of the arrangement between Oppo and Qualcomm, Nokia used the procedure under 28 USC §1782 to seek disclosure from Qualcomm in the US courts to help prove infringement.
In June 2022, Oppo was found to have infringed Nokia’s Wifi implementation patent by the Mannheim Regional Court, and the same court ruled in Nokia’s favour the next month in a dispute over two cellular SEPs.
Following two more injunctions against Oppo from a Munich court in August, the firm announced it was voluntarily withdrawing its products from the market in Germany.
However, Oppo had more success in India, where in November last year the Delhi High Court rejected Nokia’s bid to obtain a deposit of patent royalties from the Chinese firm. The suit concerned three Indian SEP patents, which Nokia claimed that Oppo had infringed on expiration of its licence.
Justice Hari Shankar rejected the request for payment of royalties pending the litigation, stating that “the entire application is clearly, fundamentally misconceived.”
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox.
Today’s top stories
‘I hate this rule’: the FTC's controversial non-competes ban
