Warner Bros Discovery Inc & Anor v Paramount Skydance Corporation & Anor

Expedition of a RAND trial is justified where foreign injunction proceedings create a real possibility that an earlier judgment on licensing entitlement and rate-setting may affect whether the implementer is treated as a willing licensee. The court should balance that benefit against the burden imposed on the opposing party and the requirements of the administration of justice.

In that assessment, the court may take account of burdens which are substantially self-inflicted because of the party’s strategic decision to maintain multiple international proceedings, particularly where alternative dispute-resolution or litigation arrangements could reduce them. Expedition may be ordered to the earliest practically available date, subject to the court’s resources, the robustness of the time estimate and the parties’ continued co-operation.

Warner Bros Discovery and Paramount brought related RAND proceedings against Nokia concerning licensing issues arising from Nokia’s standard-essential and other patents. The proceedings were case-managed together. The claimants applied to expedite the RAND trials to the earliest possible date in the Michaelmas term 2026. Nokia accepted expedition into that term but contended that the trials should not take place before 23 November 2026.

The application arose against the background of foreign proceedings in Germany, the UPC and Brazil in which Nokia sought injunctions, together with related UK litigation involving Nokia v Asustek, Acer and Hisense and Nokia v Amazon. The central issue was whether the advantages of an earlier RAND judgment outweighed the preparation burden and resource constraints relied on by Nokia.

1. Application granted. The RAND trials were directed to be expedited to the earliest possible time in the Michaelmas term 2026, subject to the court’s practical availability and the stated caveats concerning trial length, co-operation and the possible sequencing of other litigation.
2. Applying the principles in Gore v Geox [2008] EWCA Civ 622, there was a sound reason for expedition. Foreign injunction risks meant that an earlier decision on the claimants’ entitlement to a broad licence and on the rate might affect whether foreign courts regarded them as willing licensees. The claimants’ business circumstances heightened the need for certainty.
3. The court considered that the difference between an October trial and a trial in mid or late November could materially affect the practical utility of the judgment, particularly if foreign courts heard matters or delivered judgment before the UK RAND decision.
4. Nokia’s preparation burden did not outweigh those considerations. Nokia already possessed substantial relevant knowledge from related litigation, including Nokia v Amazon, and had to prepare overlapping issues for the summer trial in the Nokia v Asustek, Acer and Hisense proceedings. The resource limitations relied on were not said to make trial preparation impossible. The burden was also materially self-inflicted because Nokia had chosen to maintain multiple international litigations and could, if it wished, use additional or different resources.
5. The outstanding disclosure application concerning potentially comparable Nokia licences was not to drift. Nokia was directed rapidly to make a constructive disclosure proposal, the claimants were to narrow their application where appropriate, and the application was provisionally to be heard back-to-back with the jurisdiction hearing. The claimants were also directed to serve their positive RAND statements of case as soon as possible.