Ruling on jurisdiction to hear Apple’s claims against Qualcomm
Apple v Qualcomm  EWHC 1188 (Pat)
In the latest stage of the global litigation between Apple and Qualcomm, which raises issues of patent and competition law, Morgan J has delivered a judgment on the scope of the jurisdiction of the English courts. Some matters are reserved for a further hearing but today’s judgment includes in particular rulings on the following matters of potentially broader relevance to other cases:
- The scope of liability under the rules of the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (“ETSI”) of affiliates of those who make declarations of essential patents to ETSI. Morgan J has determined summarily that such affiliates are not liable for breach of the terms of ETSI’s IPR Policy, as a matter of the proper construction of the relevant provisions by reference to French law.
- The scope of CPR 63.14, which provides that “a claim form relating to a registered right” may be served on a foreign party without permission at a registered service address in the UK. Morgan J has determined that a claim for a declaration as to exhaustion of rights falls within that wording.
- The effect of the words “in reliance on” in Gateway 4A of paragraph 3.1 of Practice Direction 6B. Morgan J has held that Gateway 4A applies only where another claim has in fact been served in reliance on one of the other stipulated gateways; it is insufficient that the other claim could have been served in reliance on one of those other gateways.
The judgment is here.