Unwired Planet confidentiality issues resolved
A revised version of the English High Court judgment in the litigation between Unwired Planet and Huawei has been published, after the judge addressed various confidentiality requests by the parties.
Mr Justice Birss handed down his full judgment in the case in April this year. The case concerns five patents owned by Unwired Planet, and in particular whether and to what extent various licensing terms on offer are or would be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. The patents are declared to be essential to the 2G, 3G and 4G telecoms standards.
The full judgment was and remains confidential. However, a redacted judgment was made public at the time it was given, and Birss said he would hold a further hearing to address the redactions requested by the parties. That hearing took place on June 29.
Yesterday, November 30, an updated version of the redacted judgment was published, as well as a separate judgment setting out the arguments and reasons for the changes (the confidentiality judgment).
Most of the confidentiality issues concerned the details of commercial licensing information, in particular financial information such as royalty rates and lump sums. All of the licences include at least one of the parties involved at the outset of the litigation (Unwired Planet, Huawei, Ericsson and Samsung).
The updated judgment provides some more detail than the judgment published in April, but over 10% of the 800 paragraphs still contain redactions.
In the confidentiality judgment, Birss said that there is a strong principle that judgments should be publicly available: “Redactions will require powerful reasons, supported by cogent evidence which addresses the details.”
However, in this case he was persuaded that publishing the commercial licensing information “would materially weaken the competitive position of the relevant party in each case, particularly the relevant licensor”. Moreover, he said, the public can understand how the conclusions were reached without seeing the details.
Although the revised judgment includes some more detail about some of the comparable licences studied—including those between Unwired Planet and Lenovo; Unwired Planet and Samsung; Ericsson and Apple; Ericsson and Samsung; and Ericsson and RIM—the key details remain redacted.
However, the judge did not accept some proposed redactions to the section of the judgment dealing with a 2009 Ericsson-Huawei licence, which expired in 2012. He said it is “historic” and has been replaced by another licence.
The confidentiality judgment also includes as an annex a UK-only patent licence agreement between Unwired Planet and Huawei. This provides royalty rates of 0.128% (2G), 0.064% (3G) and 0.124% (4G) for end user devices, and 0.128% (2G), 0.032% (3G) and 0.144% (4G) for infrastructure equipment.
Both parties have been granted leave to appeal aspects of the April judgment, and a hearing at the Court of Appeal is scheduled for next May.
In the latest hearing, Unwired Planet was represented by barrister Thomas Jones and Enyo Law; Huawei by Andrew Lykiardopoulos QC, James Segan and Powell Gilbert; and Ericsson by Mark Brealey QC and Browne Jacobson.
Today’s top stories:
Lawyers disappointed by ‘fiendishly technical’ Red Bull decision
Three suits filed by Apple and Qualcomm on busy day for US court
EU General Court rules that ‘Real’ cannot be trademarked
INTA Berlin 2017: Lego blueprints may be future in 3D printing world
INTA Berlin 2017: Why CSR is crucial for brands
INTA Berlin 2017: Pacari Chocolate founder talks building a sustainable business
