Stop Press: Court of Appeal Clarifies Confidentiality in FRAND Judgments – InterDigital & Others, Optis v Apple

The UK Court of Appeal has today handed down a significant judgment ([2025] EWCA Civ 1263) clarifying the treatment of confidential third-party information in FRAND litigation in the UK. The decision confirms that:

• Both lump sum figures and unpacked per unit rates (including averages and totals) from third-party licences must be redacted from the public version of the judgment. Disclosure of such information would cause real commercial harm to licensors and licensees, as it would reveal the actual terms accepted in confidential negotiations and give future counterparties leverage to demand lower rates or more favourable terms. Importantly, the public can still understand the reasoning of the judgment without these details.
• Older licensing information (in this case, dating back as far as 2014) may also qualify for redaction, as licences in this sector are typically on 5 year terms and historical terms are routinely used as benchmarks in both litigation and negotiations. The fact that a licence has expired or is several years old does not necessarily reduce its significance or the potential for commercial harm if disclosed. 
• The Trade Secrets Regulations 2018 do not introduce a fundamentally new approach to redactions. The established legal test still applies: courts must carefully balance the principle of open justice against the need to protect confidential information, allowing redactions only when justified with specific, cogent evidence and kept to the minimum necessary.
• Accidental slips or omissions in judgments can and should be corrected under the ‘slip rule’ (CPR Rule 40.12), even if identified by third parties. Such corrections are not restricted to immaterial errors or those agreed by all parties; the rule applies to any accidental error, including those that are material. In this case, the Court ordered that the errors relating to the LG and InterDigital licences should be corrected in the judgment.
• Non-financial terms should not be redacted unless there is specific evidence that disclosure would cause real commercial harm. In this case, the issue was whether references in the judgment to whether licences permitted sub-licensing should be redacted. The Court found no evidence of harm from disclosure and ordered that the sub-licensing information be included in the less-redacted judgment.

This judgment brings much needed clarity for anyone involved in SEP/FRAND disputes, especially those whose confidential licensing terms might end up before the courts. By setting out when and how sensitive information should be redacted, and confirming that accidental errors can and should be corrected, the Court of Appeal has made the process more predictable for all sides. The decision should also help keep interim costs down, not least for third parties who are often drawn into these cases. Ultimately, the Court has managed to strike a sensible balance: commercially sensitive information is protected, but the reasoning behind judicial decisions remains open and accessible. This should give licensors, licensees, and others greater confidence in how their information will be handled in future UK FRAND cases.

For further details or to discuss the implications of this decision, please contact the Bristows FRAND and SEP litigation team.