Context: A few months ago, Mr Justice Richard Meade of the High Court of Justice for England & Wales (EWHC) expressed his disappointment at Panasonic’s gamesmanship (July 17, 2024 ip fray article). Despite initially favoring the idea of a global FRAND determination in the UK, which Xiaomi also embraced, Panasonic’s UK counsel went back to the court and made it clear that they’d rather gain leverage over Xiaomi from standard-essential patent (SEP) injunctions they are seeking in the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and German national courts. Mr Justice Meade wrote a letter to his UPC and German colleagues just to make them aware of the likely schedule for the rate-setting proceedings before him and the subsequent judgment (July 31, 2024 ip fray article). But another judge, Mr Justice Thomas Leech, denied Xiaomi’s request for a declaration that, as a result of the commitments both parties had made to the UK proceedings, they already had an interim license to Panasonic’s SEPs (July 8, 2024 ip fray article), citing the lack of a useful purpose.
背景：几个月前，英格兰和威尔士高等法院（EWHC）的理查德-米德（Richard Meade）法官对松下的游戏规则表示失望（2024 年 7 月 17 日 ip fray 文章）。尽管松下的英国律师最初赞成在英国进行全球 FRAND 裁定，而小米也接受了这一观点，但他们再次向法院明确表示，他们更希望通过在统一专利法院 (UPC) 和德国国家法院寻求的标准必要专利 (SEP) 禁令来获得对小米的影响力。米德法官给他的 UPC 和德国同事写了一封信，只是为了让他们了解他面前的费率设定程序和随后判决（2024 年 7 月 31 日 ip fray 文章）的可能时间表。但另一位法官托马斯-利奇（Thomas Leech）先生驳回了小米的请求，即由于双方在英国诉讼中做出的承诺，他们已经拥有松下 SEP 的临时许可证（July 8, 2024 ip fray article），理由是缺乏有用的目的。
What’s new: On Thursday (September 19, 2024), a generally eventful day on the SEP front (September 20, 2024 ip fray article), the England & Wales Court of Appeal (EWCA) heard Xiaomi’s appeal of the denial of an interim license. None of the judges made a single statement to suggest that the appellate panel condones Panasonic’s course of action. Instead, the focus appeared to be more on what the appropriate procedural response should be: interim license or antisuit injunction? An implementer who is licensed cannot be enjoined over an alleged infringement.
最新消息：周四（2024 年 9 月 19 日）是 SEP 领域多事之秋（September 20, 2024 ip fray article），英格兰和威尔士上诉法院（EWCA）审理了小米就临时许可证被拒提出的上诉。所有法官均未发表任何声明，暗示上诉小组宽恕松下的行为。相反，焦点似乎更多地集中在适当的程序性回应上：临时许可还是反诉讼禁令？获得许可的实施者不能因被控侵权而被禁止。
Direct impact: The appeals court appeared fully aware of the urgency of the matter, also in light of an upcoming FRAND trial before the UPC’s Mannheim Local Division (LD). A decision will likely come down soon. There are different possibilities now, but this is an unusual case in which an antisuit injunction might actually be the next step. German courts (particularly the Munich I Regional Court) discouraged them through the grant of preemptive anti-antisuit (AASI) and anti-anti-anti-antisuit (AAAASI) injunctions. Here, however, the circumstances are such that Panasonic had voluntarily committed to a UK FRAND determination (and wanted Xiaomi to commit to it as well), and the appeals court said that if Panasonic were to seek an AASI, it would be sanctioned in the UK for breach of its commitment to the EWHC.
直接影响：上诉法院似乎充分意识到了此事的紧迫性，同时也考虑到 UPC 曼海姆地方分部（LD）即将进行的 FRAND 审判。可能很快就会做出裁决。现在有不同的可能性，但这是一个不寻常的案件，反诉讼禁令实际上可能是下一步。德国法院（尤其是慕尼黑第一地区法院）通过颁发先发制人的反诉讼禁令（AASI）和反反诉讼禁令（AAAASI）来阻止反诉讼禁令。然而，本案的情况是，松下已自愿承诺遵守英国 FRAND 裁定（并希望小米也能遵守），上诉法院称，如果松下寻求 AASI，将因违反其对 EWHC 的承诺而在英国受到制裁。
Wider ramifications: This SEP dispute has evolved in a unique way, making further developments of an unprecedented kind more likely than the ordinary course of business. With a view to the Mannheim LD trial in little more than two weeks (LinkedIn post by ip fray), the latest UK developments could actually result in major simplification. Whether Xiaomi is (as per a UK declaration) licensed or whether the UK judges believe that it is entitled to an antisuit injunction, it even becomes questionable now whether there is any point in the Mannheim LD spending time on FRAND questions that both parties previously agreed to have adjudicated elsewhere. That same week, the Mannheim LD will also hear Panasonic v. OPPO, a dispute with a rather different pattern that involves a FRAND counterclaim by OPPO.
更广泛的影响：这场 SEP 争议以一种独特的方式演变，使得前所未有的进一步发展比正常业务过程更有可能发生。考虑到两周多一点的曼海姆 LD 审判（LinkedIn post by ip fray），英国的最新进展实际上可能导致重大简化。无论小米是否（根据英国声明）获得许可，还是英国法官是否认为小米有权获得反诉讼禁令，现在甚至可以质疑曼海姆地方法院是否有必要在 FRAND 问题上花费时间，而双方之前已同意在其他地方进行裁决。同一周，曼海姆地方法院还将审理松下诉OPPO案，这是一起模式相当不同的纠纷，涉及OPPO的FRAND反诉。
The EWCA streamed the hearing via YouTube, and the recordings of the first part and the second are still available there.
欧洲妇女和儿童事务部通过 YouTube 对听证会进行了流媒体播放，第一部分和第二部分的录音仍然可以在那里找到。
Anyone who tries to quickly get a feel for the direction the court is leaning should actually listen to the second part first, just to see what a skeptical court Panasonic’s counsel faced. For instance, Panasonic was scolded for “seeking inconsistent relief there” (meaning that they want a license to result from the UK proceedings, but injunctions in Germany).
任何试图快速了解法庭倾向的人都应该先听听第二部分，看看松下的律师面对的是怎样一个充满怀疑的法庭。例如，松下被斥责为 "寻求不一致的救济"（意思是他们希望在英国的诉讼程序中获得许可，但在德国却希望获得禁令）。
Panasonic argued that German courts take account of both parties’ conduct (though “taking account” is not the same as “giving weight”). The court noted that both Xiaomi and Panasonic recognized they need a FRAND determination in the UK. Therefore, one judge noted that would not be “a matter of imperialism” to grant Xiaomi relief (possibly in the form of an antisuit injunction), given that the parties themselves had said the English court should decide.
松下认为，德国法院会考虑双方的行为（尽管 "考虑 "与 "重视 "不同）。法院指出，小米和松下都承认他们需要英国的 FRAND 裁决。因此，一位法官指出，鉴于双方都表示应由英国法院裁决，给予小米救济（可能是反诉讼禁令的形式）并不是 "帝国主义问题"。
Unlike Mr Justice Leech, the appellate judges appeared to have understood the German situation, which is such that SEP holders are able to obtain injunctions even with supra-FRAND royalty demands. That doesn’t mean that everyone who wins in Germany seeks supra-FRAND royalties, but the system is so flawed there that it can happen. The appeals court’s profound knowledge of how SEP injunctions are granted in Germany was also reflected by the remark that “no one’s a Section 315 application,” meaning that no one has actually let a German court determine a FRAND rate on the basis of the implementer taking a license but reserving the right to have a court review the SEP holder’s demand.
与 Leech 法官不同的是，上诉法官似乎了解德国的情况，即 SEP 持有人即使提出超自由使用费要求，也能获得禁令。这并不意味着每个在德国胜诉的人都会要求获得超自由使用费，但德国的制度存在缺陷，这种情况有可能发生。上诉法院对德国如何批准 SEP 禁令的深刻了解还体现在一句话上："没有人申请第 315 条"，这意味着没有人真正让德国法院在实施者获得许可但保留法院审查 SEP 持有者要求的权利的基础上确定 FRAND 费率。
To be precise, Apple did so against Motorola in the early 2010s and the case went to trial in the Mannheim Regional Court, but was settled before a judgment came down. What happened in that case would have supported Xiaomi’s arguments in the UK proceedings, as the judge-rapporteur explained in open court that the rate sought by Motorola was completely unsupported by the real-world license agreements they presented. But that was the rate Motorola was seeking when the Mannheim Regional Court enjoined Apple.
准确地说，苹果公司曾在 2010 年代初起诉过摩托罗拉公司，曼海姆地区法院对此案进行了审理，但在做出判决之前达成了和解。该案的结果支持了小米在英国诉讼中的论点，因为法官兼报告员在公开法庭上解释说，摩托罗拉寻求的费率完全没有得到他们提交的真实世界许可协议的支持。但这正是曼海姆地区法院禁止苹果时摩托罗拉所要求的费率。
Panasonic’s counsel tried to distinguish a promise to the EWHC (“solely to the Court”) from a promise to Xiaomi regarding the license. That line of thinking got no traction. What served Panasonic’s purposes even less was the de facto admission that they wanted to benefit from foreign injunctions: Panasonic’s counsel generally said they could “do better.” That was immediately understood by the appeals court as meaning a higher royalty rate than the one that would be set by a UK court.
松下的律师试图将对 EWHC 的承诺（"仅对法院"）与对小米的许可承诺区分开来。但这一思路并不奏效。更不利于松下的是，事实上承认他们希望从外国禁令中获益：松下的律师通常说他们可以 "做得更好"。上诉法院立即将其理解为，这意味着特许权使用费率要高于英国法院设定的特许权使用费率。
Lord Justice Richard Arnold, the panel member with more SEP/FRAND and generally patent expertise than the others, apparently considered it to weigh (whether decisively or not) in favor of a declaration of an interim license that a SEP holder willing to grant a license on court-determined terms would want to be paid sooner rather than later, and in the meantime let the UK FRAND proceedings run their course. So someone who wants to forgo those near-term royalty payments in order to seek foreign injunctions must be trying to extract supra-FRAND rates.
理查德-阿诺德大法官（Lord Justice Richard Arnold）是小组成员中对 SEP/FRAND 以及一般专利方面的专业知识比其他人更丰富的一位，他显然认为（无论是否具有决定性意义），愿意按照法院确定的条件授予许可的 SEP 持有人希望尽早得到付款，同时让英国的 FRAND 诉讼程序顺利进行，这对临时许可声明是有利的。因此，为了寻求外国禁令而放弃支付近期专利使用费的人，一定是在试图获得超 FRAND 费率。
Lord Justice Arnold also “commended” the parties for having agreed to conclude a license agreement based on court-determined terms, and asked why one would then disrupt the process (through the potential enforcement of injunctions in other jurisdictions).
阿诺德大法官还 "赞扬 "双方同意根据法院确定的条款签订许可协议，并询问为何要（通过在其他司法管辖区执行禁令的可能性）破坏这一进程。
When Xiaomi’s lead counsel on appeal (Daniel Alexander KC) spoke, the appeals court appeared to be struggling with only one question: should there be a declaration of an interim license as sought by Xiaomi or wouldn’t it be more appropriate and conventional for Xiaomi to seek an antisuit injunction, which one appellate judge describged as a “simple and straightforward recognized English law solution”?
当小米公司的首席上诉律师（Daniel Alexander KC）发言时，上诉法院似乎只纠结于一个问题：是应该像小米公司所寻求的那样宣布临时许可证，还是小米公司寻求反诉讼禁令（一位上诉法官称其为 "简单明了的公认英国法解决方案"）更为合适和常规？
Xiaomi’s counsel explained that he was “not saying there are no grounds for [an antisuit injunction]” but that German courts might then deem Xiaomi an unwilling licensee. There is indeed case law from the Munich I Regional Court to that effect. And Panasonic could seek an AASI from a German court (they could also try in the UPC, though the UPC’s ability to grant one is another question).
小米公司的律师解释说，他 "并不是说（反诉讼禁令）没有理由"，而是说德国法院可能会将小米公司视为不情愿的被许可人。慕尼黑第一地区法院确实有这方面的判例。松下可以向德国法院申请反诉禁令（他们也可以向 UPC 申请，但 UPC 是否有能力批准则是另一个问题）。
The appeals court had a stern warning for Panasonic: if they filed for an AASI, they’d be in breach of an undertaking to the UK court. In other words, the UK court might (possibly even at its own initiative) sanction Panasonic for that course of action.
上诉法院对松下发出了严厉的警告：如果他们申请 AASI，就违反了对英国法院的承诺。换句话说，英国法院可能（甚至可能主动）对松下的这一行为进行制裁。
Xiaomi’s counsel argued that an interim license would provide interim payments to Panasonic, while an AASI would not have that effect. And he argued that Xiaomim’s proposal of actually making a payment of a reasonable sum (which could still get higher if Panasonic persuaded the court that a higher rate is FRAND) went further than Huawei v. ZTE, which the UK judiciary is now (post-Brexit) free to deviate from but which is still underlying the applicable SEP case law in the UK, particularly Unwired Planet v. Huawei.
小米公司的律师认为，临时许可证将向松下公司提供临时付款，而 AASI 则没有这种效果。他还认为，小米提出的实际支付合理金额的建议（如果松下说服法院认为更高的费率是 "FRAND"，那么支付的金额还可以更高）比华为诉中兴案更进一步。更进一步，英国司法机构现在（英国脱欧后）可以自由偏离该条款，但该条款仍是英国适用的SEP判例法的基础，尤其是Unwired Planet诉华为案。
Mr. Alexander did not want to be too specific in open court, but referred to a “communication received only last Friday” that contained numbers that he argued showed to the appeals court that “the probability of Panasonic’s approach being the correct one is very low.” That could relate to a royalty demand. At least it is not easy to think of why any “numbers” would be contained in a communication and relevant to this case if they were not related to the royalty dispute.
亚历山大先生不想在公开法庭上说得太具体，但他提到了 "上周五才收到的一份函件"，其中包含一些数字，他认为这些数字向上诉法院表明，"松下的做法是正确的可能性非常低"。这可能与特许权使用费要求有关。至少，如果 "数字 "与特许权使用费纠纷无关，就不容易想出为什么会有 "数字 "出现在通信中并与本案有关。
Given that the court has no love for Panasonic’s attempt to use the English courts for its purposes unless and until some other jurisdiction enables a better deal for Panasonic, it is hard to imagine that Mr Justice Leech’s decision would be affirmed in a way that Panasonic would appreciate. It would be a Pyrrhic victory for Panasonic if the judgment affirmed the denial of a declaration of an interim license but strongly encouraged a motion for an antisuit injunction.
鉴于法院对松下利用英国法院达到其目的的企图并无好感，除非并直到其他司法管辖区能为松下带来更好的交易，很难想象李奇法官的判决会以松下所赞赏的方式得到确认。如果判决维持了拒绝宣布临时许可证的判决，但却大力鼓励申请反诉讼禁令，这对松下来说将是一场失败的胜利。
Panasonic’s UPC and German counsel cannot be blamed. They recommended what works best in German national court. But Panasonic may have underestimated the blowback this would draw from the UK judiciary, at two levels by now. Those are the intricacies of multi-jurisdictional disputes. But, as stated further above, this could end up simplifying things greatly for the UPC. Should the UK decision come down before the Mannheim FRAND trial, and should it make it clear that Panasonic at some point opted for a UK FRAND determination and Xiaomi accepted, the unique situation (in past UK SEP disputes there was one side that wanted a UK FRAND determination, such as Unwired Planet, and one that opposed it, such as Huawei in that case) could also have unexpected consequences in the UPC.
松下的 UPC 和德国律师难辞其咎。他们推荐了在德国国内法院最有效的方法。但松下可能低估了这一做法将在两个层面上引起英国司法机构的反弹。这就是多司法管辖区纠纷的复杂性。但如上所述，这最终可能会大大简化 UPC 的工作。如果英国的判决在曼海姆FRAND审判之前做出，并且明确松下在某一时刻选择了英国的FRAND裁决，而小米也接受了，那么这种独特的情况（在过去的英国SEP纠纷中，有一方希望英国做出FRAND裁决，如Unwired Planet，而另一方则反对，如华为在该案中）也可能在UPC中产生意想不到的后果。
Of course, until the EWCA decides, anything can happen. But the Thursday hearing does not make it very likely that a two-judge majority would side with Panasonic.
当然，在 EWCA 做出裁决之前，任何事情都有可能发生。但从周四的听证会来看，两位法官的多数意见不太可能支持松下。