Irides: Weekly patent litigation update

This edition features updates from: the United Kingdom (UK), India, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and Brazil.

The Irides Weekly Update is our round-up of patent litigation news highlights from around the world. Taking its name from the plural of “iris” - a nod to the ability of Irides to see what’s happening around the world.
 

UK

Supreme Court Grants Permission to Appeal in Tesla v Avanci.

The UK Supreme Court has granted Tesla permission, on all grounds bar one, to further appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision (as previously reported here) which declined jurisdiction, by a 2:1 majority (Arnold LJ dissenting), over Tesla’s claim for a declaration as to whether the Avanci platform licence rate is FRAND.

The Supreme Court is therefore set to grapple with the question of whether the English Courts have jurisdiction to determine claims brought by implementers regarding FRAND terms for pool licences.
 

UK

High Court Rejects Huawei’s Second Bid to Stay UK FRAND Proceedings.

On the 4 July 2025, Leech J handed down his judgment:

1. dismissing Huawei’s application for a second case management stay (Second Stay Application);
2. granting MediaTek permission to amend its Particulars of Claim; and
3. refusing Huawei permission to appeal the previous judgment ([2025] EWHC 649 (Pat)) (Judgment).

The parties are involved in a global FRAND dispute relating to their SEPs including in China, the UPC, and Brazil. MediaTek had initiated proceedings in the UK requesting a FRAND determination for Huawei’s patent portfolio. 

Second Stay Application

Leech J had previously refused Huawei’s first application for a case management stay in December 2024, however, Huawei argued that since then (1) there had been a material change in circumstances; and (2) the Judgment should be recalled and forum non conveniens reconsidered.

Material change in circumstances: Huawei put forward four reasons as to why there had been a material change in circumstances, with Leech J rejecting all of them.

1. Change in law: Huawei argued that the decision in Optis v Apple [2025] EWCA Civ 552, which held that the Court’s decision in the US State of Delaware could be supplemented in England, was a change in the law. However, Leech J determined that not only had he considered the possibility that the English Court would give effect to the findings of the Chinese Court, but also that Optis v Apple was not a fundamental change in the law.
2. Shenzhen Claim: Huawei argued that the Shenzhan Court would now determine a global rate for both parties’ SEPs. However, this would only apply with MediaTek’s consent which had not been provided.
3. The Offers: Following the order to expedite the UK trial, Huawei made four offers to MediaTek, all related to entering into a global licence or cross-licence on terms determined by the Shenzhen Court. Given there was no reason why these offers could not have been made before the Judgment, it did not amount to a material change in circumstances.
4. The Undertakings: The first undertaking was that Huawei would submit to an injunction and damages if the MediaTek patents were valid and infringed rather than plead the FRAND defence. The second undertaking was that Huawei would not enforce its 4G/5G SEPs until 31 December 2030. Both undertakings were put forward on the condition that the Court stayed the proceedings. Leech J found that, in principle, undertakings could amount to a change in circumstances, but that this was not the case here. This was because both the undertakings could have been offered before the Judgment, they were an attempt to re-open and re-argue the jurisdictional challenge which would involve a mini-trial, and they would not offer the same protection as a global licence on FRAND terms.

Given the fact there was no material change in circumstances and the importance of the finality principle, the argument to recall the Judgment was rejected. MediaTek was entitled to pursue its claims once the court dismissed the application to stay them on forum non conveniens grounds.

Permission to Appeal

There were 36 Grounds of Appeal for the 12 issues determined in the Judgment. Leech J found that none of them had a real prospect of success. Leech J had followed the precedents he was bound by. There was therefore no reasonable prospect of success for any of the grounds and permission to appeal was refused.
 

INDIA

Delhi High Court Rejects Appeal on Patentability of Software-Based Inventions.

On 1 July 2025, the Delhi High Court found that the Comptroller had made no error when refusing Kroll Information Assurance LLC's Indian Patent Application  No. 8100/DELNP/2007 titled ‘A System, Method and Apparatus to locate at least one type of person, via a Peer to Peer Network’ (the Application) for lack of patentability under s.3(k) of the Patents Act (PA).

The Application related a system and method for identifying specific types of people or specific types of information on a peer-to-peer network. Specific search terms are used to query the network with the objective of profiling users or locating data based on the search results, using standard computing components.

S.3(k) PA excludes patent applications for mathematical or business methods, computer programme per se or algorithms from patentability. However, if the invention results in a technical effect or technical advancement of the hardware, then it is patentable subject matter as this aligns with the “per se” qualifier. A computer programme must be more than a mere sequence of instruction and result in a significant technical effect or advancement of the hardware.

The invention was found to utilise conventional and generic computer hardware components to implement the computer programme to connect peer-to-peer and issue searches. It reflected conventional “computer programme” behaviour that was not enhancing the functionality of the hardware. The Comptroller was therefore right to conclude the claims 1-7 related to a computer programme per se, and claims 8-10 fell under the category of algorithms.

The Comptroller had also rejected proposed amendments under s.59 PA on the basis they were beyond the scope of the application. The Court accepted that the Comptroller was wrong to do so given the additional features were limitations to the claim to specify the retrieved information, thus narrowing the claim which is a permissible amendment.
 

UPC

Munich Local Division Considers Defendant and Claimant Security for Costs Applications in Headwater v Motorola
(UPC_CFI_127/202).

The Court dismissed the Claimant’s application on the basis that Art. 69.4 UPCA does not provide a legal basis for a claimant to provide security for costs. The Court considered that the rationale behind granting security for a defendant to an action does not apply to the ‘defendant’ to a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity because a counterclaim is the “direct consequence” of the infringement action and ordering such security would unreasonably restrict the defendant’s ability to defend itself.

On the other hand, the Court granted the Defendants’ request for security. The Court considered a number of factors which put into doubt the ability of the Claimant to fulfil a future costs order requiring payment of the Defendants’ costs. These factors included: that the Claimant’s business is in licensing patents but there was no information as to the extent that it generates income from licensing its patents or the value of the portfolio, it is exposed to cost risks form other proceedings, its creditworthiness was assessed by a third party as ‘low’ and it appears to be essentially funded by third partes. Significantly, the Claimant had not put forward information to substantiate its arguments as to its assets and liquidity, nor had it argued that a provision of security would unreasonably prejudice its right to an effective legal remedy.

The Court ordered the Claimant to provide a total security of €300,000 split between the different groups of Defendants (i.e. half of the ceiling for recoverable costs based on the value of both the infringement proceedings and invalidity counterclaim).
 

UPC

UPC Grants Language Change to English in Renault v Avago
(UPC_CFI_448/2025).

On 3 July 2025, the Munich Local Division granted the Defendants’ request to change the language of proceedings from German to the language of the patent (English).

In coming to its decision the Court considered the circumstances, including that: English is the language commonly used in the technical field of the patent relating to vehicular electronics, the disputes involve companies operating worldwide, the Defendants (French and German entities) commonly communicate in English and the Claimant (registered in Singapore) did not substantiate how it would be affected by the requested change.

The Court further noted that the Claimant’s arguments as to the language skills of the authorised representatives and the nationality of the judges forming the panel are not generally considered as relevant circumstances. Overall, the Claimant had not demonstrated that there should be any deviation from the general principle that the defendants’ position should be the decisive factor.
 

BRAZIL

Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office Increases its Official Fees.

The Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office has announced that from 7 August 2025 its fees are set to change. These changes include increased fees for certain patent services, for example in relation to patent application filings, requests for examination and annuities with some fees being increased by more than 45%.