Apple to pay Optis $5m a year for SEPs: reports

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Apple to pay Optis $5m a year for SEPs: reports

Apple store
saiko3p / Adobe Stock

A Foss Patents blog post revealed that Mr Justice Marcus Smith handed down his judgment in Optis v Apple on May 10

Update, June 9: Managing IP has since obtained a copy of the judgment.

Mr Justice Marcus Smith has determined that Apple must pay $5 million a year for an Optis standard essential patent portfolio in a 300-page decision at the England and Wales High Court, it emerged in a Foss Patents blog post today, June 7.

The May 10 Optis v Apple decision hasn’t been published, but the blog broke the news by obtaining some information from an anonymous source.

It would mean that Apple must pay around $60 million for a global lifetime licence that includes back royalties to the portfolio, Foss Patents stated.

According to the blog, the court rejected some of the iPhone maker’s arguments for lowering the royalty rates. Justice Smith didn’t accept Apple’s position that the royalty should be based on the smallest saleable patent-practising unit, the blog said.

The court also rejected Optis’s comparable licence agreements, the blog said.

According to Foss Patents, the court said: "[G]iven the nature of Optis’ counterparties to the Optis comparables – generally small players in the market, with low or at least not massive sales volumes – there is a question whether these licences properly reflect a FRAND rate for a counterparty like Apple."

The court didn’t find Apple to be an unwilling licensee, according to Foss Patents.

Optis and Apple have been embroiled in a global dispute over SEPs for 3G and 4G technology for several years.

Optis initially sued Apple in the UK, alleging infringement of eight patents in February 2019.

The litigation was split into four technical trials to determine validity and infringement, plus this one to decide the terms of a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licence.

There was also an interim trial in October 2021, which determined that Apple had to agree to take a court-determined FRAND licence to avoid an injunction.

Apple had previously threatened to leave the UK in July 2021 over its battle with Optis after fears that it would be forced to pay $7 billion.

But in November 2021 – after the interim trial – it agreed to take a licence that the court determined to be FRAND, which has now been determined.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Data centres are being built across the US, prompting patent disputes, but Texas’s thriving tech industry and patent-ready courts make the state particularly ‘ripe’ for litigation
Carpmaels & Ransford is set to bolster its UK attorney team with the appointment of Simmons & Simmons’s head of IP in the UK
Updates on Nokia’s licensing strides and a surge in patent activity around battery recycling in Australia were also among the top talking points
To mark International Day Against Child Labour, Matteo Amerio at Corsearch says the people inside businesses who can identify counterfeiting risks must be given the tools and authority to act
With genuine equity at IP firms becoming rarer, securing partnership is harder than ever, but increased transparency is also making climbing the ladder more predictable
Yossi Sivan explains how Israeli judgment is a pro-brand owner departure from the norm and why it sends a strong message that corporate structures are not always a shield
Halim Shehadeh, group CEO of IP firm CWB, says that in the rush to discuss what AI can do, IP firms are overlooking the more important question of whether they are ready
Caitlin Heard, who formally joined the firm from CMS last month, says she is excited by the ‘energy’ of the London office
Ranjna Mehta-Dutt, who moved to Chadha & Chadha after 25 years at Remfry & Sagar, says the firm plans to expand its life sciences practice through targeted recruitment and dedicated teams for bigger clients
The initial contempt of court claim targeted Stobbs and the firm’s client for allegedly interfering with the administration of justice
Gift this article