Court of Appeal upholds landmark Apple v Optis ruling

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Court of Appeal upholds landmark Apple v Optis ruling

AdobeStock_417477963 (1).jpeg

Implementers must agree in advance to pay what the court determines as FRAND, the England and Wales Court of Appeal has ruled

Technology manufacturers must accept a court-determined royalty for standard-essential patents or face an injunction, the England and Wales Court of Appeal ruled in Apple v Optis yesterday, October 27.

The judgment, written by Lord Justice Richard Arnold, was issued just over a week after the final hearing in the dispute. It affirmed High Court judge Richard Meade’s landmark decision in September 2021.

In a notable postscript to the judgment, Arnold bemoaned what he described as the “dysfunctional state” of SEP dispute resolution.

In the 2021 ruling, Meade told Apple it must agree to pay whatever terms the court later deemed fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) for a royalty to Optis’s SEP portfolio.

If Apple didn’t make that undertaking, it would be hit with a so-called FRAND injunctio that would bar the sales of infringing devices in the UK.

Apple committed to take a licence but later appealed against the judgment, on the grounds that implementers must be able to see the terms of a deal before they agreed to pay.

Optis filed its own cross-appeal, in which it argued that Meade’s proposed FRAND injunction was too generous to Apple.

Optis said Apple should be subject to an unqualified injunction, which would stop the smartphone maker from using the patented technology even after it had made the FRAND undertaking.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals and instead endorsed Meade’s approach.

In his postscript, Arnold said each side had “adopted its position in an attempt to game the system in its favour”.

He added: “The only way to put a stop to such behaviour is for standard-development organisations like the European Telecommunications Standards Institute to make legally enforceable arbitration of such disputes part of their intellectual property rights policies.”

Optis was represented by EIP and Osborne Clarke. WilmerHale acted for Apple.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Attorneys explain why there are early signs that the US Supreme Court could rule in favour of ISP Cox in a copyright dispute
A swathe of UPC-related hires suggests firms are taking the forum seriously, as questions over the transitional stage begin
A win for Nintendo in China and King & Spalding hiring a prominent patent litigator were also among the top talking points
Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard, who live-reported on the seminal dispute, unpicks the trials and tribulations of the case and considers its impact
Attorneys predict how Lululemon’s trade dress and design patent suit against Costco could play out
Lawyers at Linklaters analyse some of the key UPC trends so far, and look ahead to life beyond the transition period
David Rodrigues, who previously worked at an IP boutique, said he may become more involved in transactional work at his new firm
Indian smartphone maker Lava must pay $2.3 million as a security deposit for past sales, as its dispute with Dolby over audio coding SEPs plays out
Powell Gilbert’s opening in Düsseldorf, complete with a new partner hire, continues this summer’s trend of UPC-related lateral movement
IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Gift this article