Mediatek Inc & Ors v Huawei Technologies Co, Ltd & Anor

A final judgment should be reopened only for a sufficiently powerful reason, and an application based on changed circumstances requires a material change since the original decision. A party cannot ordinarily reopen the matter by making late offers or revised undertakings which could have been made earlier, particularly where assessing their effect would require a mini-trial. The finality principle may justify refusing to entertain such an application.

For service under CPR Part 63.14(2), claims seeking enforcement of FRAND obligations relating to UK standard-essential patents relate to patents within the jurisdiction, even where the licence sought may have global effect. The proper characterisation of the claim is central to the jurisdictional analysis.

The judgment concerned consequential applications following the court’s earlier judgment in the same proceedings, [2025] EWHC 649 (Pat). Huawei sought a second case-management stay, permission to reopen the earlier judgment, and permission to appeal. It relied on developments in parallel Chinese proceedings, revised offers and undertakings, and proposed grounds challenging jurisdiction, claim characterisation and case management.

MediaTek sought permission to amend its Particulars of Claim concerning a declaration against the Second Defendant. The court had to decide whether there had been a material change of circumstances, whether the earlier judgment should be reopened, whether the FRAND claims were related to patent claims for the purposes of CPR Part 63.14(2), and whether Huawei had any real prospect of success on appeal.

1. Second stay application. Huawei had to show a material change of circumstances since the earlier refusal of a stay. The alleged change in the law, developments in the Shenzhen proceedings, offers and revised undertakings did not satisfy that requirement. The offers could have been made earlier, required MediaTek’s consent in important respects, and could not be used to bargain with the court or obtain another opportunity to argue issues already decided.
2. The proposed undertakings were conditional and their scope would require a further factual examination. A stay application should not become a mini-trial. In any event, the undertakings did not provide the same protection as a FRAND licence, while the pressing need for a FRAND licence and MediaTek’s entitlement to pursue its claims to trial were powerful reasons against a stay.
3. Reopening the judgment. Applying the finality principle discussed in AIC Ltd v Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria, the court dismissed the application to reopen. It was not appropriate to entertain an application which sought both to rely on alleged changed circumstances and to reargue the principal issues.
4. Amendment. Permission was granted for MediaTek to amend its Particulars of Claim. The court clarified that it had not intended to strike out Claim (6) against the Second Defendant and held that MediaTek had a real prospect of obtaining the relevant declaration.
5. Permission to appeal. Permission was refused. The FRAND claims related to the challenged UK patent claims under CPR Part 63.14(2). The court followed the characterisation of comparable claims in Conversant CA and Nokia CA and relied on the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Tesla Inc v InterDigital Patent Holdings Inc. Huawei’s remaining grounds had no real prospect of success, including because the case-management stay was discretionary and no powerful reason for departure from the normal course had been shown.

High Court (Patents Court) — The court refused Huawei’s second case-management stay application and application to reopen the earlier judgment, granted MediaTek permission to amend, and refused permission to appeal.