In a judgment of May of this year, Morgan J dismissed a number of grounds of jurisdiction relied upon by Apple for its claim before the English Courts against Qualcomm under Article 102 TFEU. These included Gateway 3 (necessary and proper party) and Gateway 4A (related claims against same Defendant) (see http://www.brickcourt.co.uk/news/detail/ruling-on-jurisdiction-to-hear-apples-claims-against-qualcomm). However, a decision in relation to Gateway 9 (tort) was adjourned.
The Court has now decided to retain jurisdiction over the claim under Gateway 9. Morgan J allowed Apple’s application to rely on new evidence and found that this constituted a plausible evidential basis for an allegation of loss within the jurisdiction. Apple was ordered to pay 80% of the costs of Qualcomm’s jurisdiction challenge.
The competition claim will therefore proceed in this jurisdiction in tandem with certain patent claims between the same parties.
The judgment is here.
Marie Demetriou QC and Colin West appeared for Apple, instructed by Boies Schiller Flexner (UK) LLP.
Mark Howard QC, Nicholas Saunders QC and Gerard Rothschild appeared for Qualcomm, instructed by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.