Brick Court Chambers

News & Events

‘One of the super-sets’, Brick Court Chambers is ‘an all-round strong’ set with ‘a large selection of high-quality competition law specialists’, ‘top commercial counsel’, ‘an excellent chambers for banking litigation’, and a ‘go-to’ set for public administrative law.
The Legal 500 2020
The clerks’ room ‘sets the benchmark’ for other sets with its ‘friendly, knowledgeable, and hardworking’ clerks.
The Legal 500 2020
"An outstanding commercial set with a track record of excellence across its core areas of work."
Chambers & Partners 2018
"A set that is singled out for its "first-rate" clerking and "client service-oriented, commercial approach."

Ruling on jurisdiction to hear Apple’s claims against Qualcomm


Apple v Qualcomm [2018] 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.

Marie Demetriou QC and Colin West acted for the Claimants (Apple), instructed by Boies Schiller Flexner (UK) LLP.

Mark Howard QC, James Flynn QC, Nicholas Saunders QC and Gerard Rothschild acted for the Defendants (Qualcomm), instructed by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.