Apple to pay Optis $5m a year for SEPs: reports
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The firm was among multiple winners at a record-breaking 2024 ceremony held in London on April 11
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The Americas research cycle has commenced. Do not miss this opportunity to nominate your work!
Increased and new patent fees could affect prosecution strategies for law firms and companies, according to sources
Five former Oblon lawyers felt that joining Merchant & Gould would help them offer the right prices to entice clients
The UK may not be a UPC member but its firms are still acting in proceedings, with Carpmaels among the most prominent
Naomi Pearce of Pearce IP shares how she is helping her firm become a life sciences leader and how generous policies have helped attract top talent
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal filed by Ocado, in what was a key test for transparency at the new court
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP lawyer or professional about their life and career
INTA is calling out ‘immoral’ unregistered attendees at the association’s annual meeting, but the debate is more nuanced
Gift this article