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

Sheppard has added quantum and robotics expertise to its AI industry team to help clients navigate questions around inventorship and IP infringement
The 2026 Americas ceremony recognised outstanding firms and practitioners, along with highlighting impact cases of the year
A development concerning Stephen Thaler’s AI copyright application in India and an integration between IPH group firms were also among the top talking points
As concerns around the little-known litigation tool increase, practitioners say they are educating their clients on how it can be most effective
Kilburn & Strode and Mewburn Ellis are just two firms that have invested heavily in office space – a sign that the legal industry is serious about in-person working
In major recent developments, Dyson snagged another win against Hong Kong-based competitor Dreame and a new AI-powered UPC platform was launched
Mohit and Sidhant Goel decided not to pursue an interim injunction application so that their client, Communications Components Antenna, could benefit from a fast-track trial
Anita Cade, head of Ashurst’s IP and media team in Australia, discusses why law firms that can pull together capability across different practice areas and jurisdictions stand to gain
INTA’s CEO says London-based firms have registered fewer delegates compared to past meetings in San Diego and Atlanta, and questions the 'ethics' of trying to participate without registering
Lobbies and interest groups are among the interveners in a major dispute over whether courts can set patent pool rates
Gift this article