Paramount Skydance Corporation & Anor v Nokia Corporation & Anor

An anti-anti-suit injunction is an exceptional remedy. Its grant is never automatic and cannot follow merely because another case presents similar facts. Each application requires close scrutiny of its particular circumstances, including considerations of international comity.

At an ex parte hearing, the court should not ordinarily make a mandatory order requiring an absent party to provide information or assurances, especially where compliance requires careful consideration. By contrast, permission to serve out may properly rely on an earlier decision where the factual and legal circumstances are materially identical. A witness statement may be used for purposes other than the action in which it was provided with the court’s permission under CPR 32.12.

Paramount applied urgently and ex parte for an interim anti-anti-suit injunction against Nokia in connection with international patent litigation concerning RAND obligations and video-streaming technology. It also sought alternative service, permission to serve outside the jurisdiction, and associated directions.

The application was said to resemble Warner Bros v Nokia, in which Mellor J had granted interim anti-anti-suit relief. Before the application was determined, Paramount was shown a limited extract from a Nokia witness statement in the Warner Bros proceedings indicating that Nokia had neither sought, nor intended to seek, an injunction preventing Warner Bros from pursuing its UK claim. Paramount accepted that ex parte relief had thereby become inappropriate, while seeking to preserve the ability to renew its application.

The central issues were whether the court should grant interim or mandatory relief without notice, whether the witness statement could be disclosed under CPR 32.12, and whether permission to serve out should follow the earlier decision.

1. Anti-anti-suit relief. The court stressed that an anti-suit or anti-anti-suit injunction is never automatic. It remains a quite exceptional remedy. Even substantial factual similarity with another case cannot justify an order without careful scrutiny of the unique facts, the rapidly changing international litigation context and judicial comity. Warner Bros v Nokia [2025] EWHC 2888 (Pat) did not establish any contrary principle.
2. Effect of later events. The application might have succeeded or failed and was marginal, but Nokia’s position in the Warner Bros proceedings made ex parte anti-anti-suit relief effectively impossible. Paramount accepted that the application had become overtaken by events. The draft order appropriately preserved Paramount’s ability to renew the injunction application if later events made that necessary.
3. Mandatory relief and service. The court refused to make an ex parte mandatory order requiring Nokia to provide information or assurances. Nokia had no opportunity to comment, the proposed deadline was imminent, and the requested matters required careful consideration. Alternative service was unnecessary because service in Finland could be accomplished swiftly, and in the circumstances the court would not have ordered it ex parte.
4. Witness statement. In the unusual circumstances, it was just and realistic to draw Paramount’s attention to a limited extract from Nokia’s witness statement. The court held that it had power under CPR 32.12 to permit use of a witness statement for purposes other than the action in which it was provided. A retrospective order was made to formalise that course, subject to Nokia’s right to apply to set it aside.
5. Service out. The approach to service out differed from the approach to anti-anti-suit relief. Where the rules and authorities permit, materially identical factual circumstances may justify reliance on an earlier decision. The court held that Mellor J’s analysis in Warner Bros v Nokia, at paragraphs 20–38, applied identically, mutatis mutandis, and permission to serve out was granted for the same reasons.