Lenovo Group Limited & Ors v Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors

Applications for expedition of a FRAND trial are determined by balancing the need for early resolution against fair trial preparation, the administration of justice, prejudice to the opposing party and any special factors. Actual or threatened foreign injunctions may provide good reason for expedition, particularly where the English proceedings offer the most realistic route to resolving the dispute. The court should also consider the effect on other litigants and the parties’ ability to narrow the issues. Expedition does not impermissibly interfere with foreign proceedings or criticise a foreign court. A provisional estimate of trial length may be made on imperfect information, but parties must narrow issues so that a manageable trial can proceed.

Lenovo sought expedition of its claim for declarations concerning its entitlement to, and the terms of, a FRAND licence for InterDigital’s patent portfolio. Lenovo sought a trial in June or July 2025; InterDigital preferred October or November 2025. Lenovo relied on actual and threatened foreign enforcement measures, including an injunction in Germany and proceedings in the United States. The court also had to consider the effect of listing the trial on other litigants, the likely scope and length of the trial, and whether a Category 4 judge would be required.

1. Expedition. The court applied the four questions in WL Gore & Associates GMBH v Geox SpA [2008] EWCA 6322: whether there was good reason for expedition; whether expedition would interfere with the administration of justice, including the interests of other litigants; whether it would prejudice the opposing party; and whether special factors existed.
2. There was good reason for expedition. Lenovo faced actual harm from the German injunction and likely significant harm from the United States proceedings. The absence of an interim mechanism for holding the ring pending a FRAND determination strengthened the case for reducing delay. The court assumed that the parties would act in the real world on the court’s determination of FRAND terms.
3. InterDigital, as a well-resourced party, could prepare fairly for a July 2025 trial. The imminent disclosure of comparable licences would allow Lenovo to plead its detailed case by September 2024. Expedition would not amount to an attack on comity or an attempt to influence foreign courts; the effect of the English decision in those jurisdictions would remain a matter for them.
4. The effect on other litigants did not outweigh the need for urgency. The competing Nokia/Amazon trial was listed for October 2025, leaving the June/July 2025 window available. The parties nevertheless had to recognise that urgent interlocutory applications might affect court resources.
5. Trial length and judge category. On imperfect information, a period of 20 days, including judicial pre-reading, was appropriate. The parties had a duty to narrow the issues. Lenovo accepted that it would not argue that no licence was required for non-essential patents, so technical issues requiring a Category 4 judge were unlikely. The court ordered an expedited trial in June/July 2025, ideally commencing on 23 June 2025.