Nokia Technologies OY v One Plus Technology (Shenzhen) Co, Ltd & Ors

Where a defendant pleads an unresolved existing licence which could defeat injunctive relief, the court should not grant an injunction before that issue is tried. A general objection that compliance would be burdensome or disproportionate must be supported by evidence; where the defendant can obtain the necessary information by reasonable enquiries, the objection will fail.

Financial relief does not follow automatically from liability. An inquiry or account may be refused if clearly fruitless, but modest potential recovery is insufficient by itself. Disclosure must be tailored and proportionate to the remedy pursued.

This was a consequentials hearing after the court had found Oppo liable for infringement of Nokia’s implementation patent. Oppo opposed an injunction on several grounds, including an allegation that it was already licensed under French law. The court held that allegation could not be summarily determined and required determination at a later trial.

The court also considered the appropriate financial remedies, disclosure, permission to appeal and costs. The central issues were whether injunctive relief should be deferred, whether Nokia should receive an inquiry as to damages or an account of profits, and how far consequential disclosure and costs should extend.

1. Injunction. The pleaded allegation that the defendants were already licensed under French law could not be disposed of summarily. Since it might establish a licence covering the patent, no injunction could be granted before Trial E. The court expressly declined to determine wider jurisdictional questions concerning foreign implementation patents and FRAND proceedings.
2. Burden and proportionality. Oppo had not established that compliance with an injunction would be unduly burdensome. It could obtain from Qualcomm a simple assurance as to whether the relevant chip behaviour depended on the radio-bearer setting. Any genuine dispute about whether conduct fell within the injunction could be brought before the court for determination.
3. Financial relief. An inquiry as to damages or, at Nokia’s election, an account of profits was ordered. The possibility that recovery might be modest did not make the inquiry fruitless. However, the proposed disclosure was not automatic and had to be proportionate to the remedy. Nokia was directed first to provide an outline statement explaining how it would pursue damages and, if applicable, an account of profits; further disclosure could then be reconsidered. The court treated Island Records v Tring [1996] 1 WLR 1256 disclosure as requiring case-specific tailoring.
4. Permission and costs. Permission to appeal was refused. There was no real prospect of success on obviousness over Jarvinen, even assuming arguable issues concerning enablement or a technical error. Nokia was the overall winner, subject to deductions for severable issues, and recovered neither 50% of its post-trial costs nor those costs allocated to the later trial.

First-instance consequentials judgment following the court’s earlier liability judgment of 9 November 2022 in the same proceedings. The earlier judgment’s citation was not stated.