Warner Bros Discovery Inc & Ors v Nokia Corporation & Anor

In fixing an interim payment pending determination of a global RAND licence, the court should adopt a fair, simple and robust approach without conducting a mini-trial. A mid-point between competing positions is useful but is not mandatory, particularly where the parties’ methodologies are radically different and the resulting range is exceptionally wide. Issues that are clearly resolved may be decided, but genuinely arguable issues should be left for trial. The usefulness of an adjustable payment to the patentee is generally beside the point. The payment should reflect the possible range of final RAND outcomes, including past use where appropriate, while allowing for material uncertainty. The court may make a subjective adjustment rather than pursue false mathematical precision.

Warner Bros Discovery and Paramount agreed with Nokia to withdraw parallel litigation, enter a global RAND licence covering Nokia’s video portfolio, and make interim payments pending the trial determination of the licence terms.

The parties agreed non-refundable interim payments but disputed whether any refundable payment should be made and, if so, how it should be calculated. Nokia relied principally on bilateral agreements and a lump-sum offer made to Paramount. The claimants relied principally on pool scaling, Agreement D and the Nokia Lump Sum Offer. They also disputed whether payment should extend back to 2011 and whether compound interest should be included.

1. Adjustable payment. The argument that no refundable payment should be made because Nokia could not recognise it as revenue was rejected. Money could still be placed on deposit or used to offset debt. The Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Lenovo v Ericsson [2025] EWCA Civ 182 was applicable. More fundamentally, the question was what willing parties would agree pending determination of the final RAND amount.
2. Methodology. The mid-point approach described in TP-Link v Huawei [2026] EWHC 179 (Pat) is not mandatory. It is intended to provide a fair, simple and robust assessment without a mini-trial. The court should not resolve genuinely arguable issues, or become burdened by trial-level detail. Neither the pool-scaling approach nor Agreements A to C could be rejected entirely at this stage.
3. Past use. The general approach in InterDigital v Lenovo [2024] EWCA Civ 743 was that a RAND licence should generally provide for payment for all past use, subject to a possible industry-practice exception. The evidence did not establish such an industry practice. However, the unusual circumstances concerning Nokia’s delayed video-licensing activity created doubt about recovery back to 2011. That doubt had to be reflected in the interim assessment. Compound interest remained appropriate.
4. Assessment. The Nokia Lump Sum Offer was relatively simple, was an actual offer, and concerned the same or a substantially similar portfolio. It therefore received significant weight. The court nevertheless retained some allowance for the possibility that Nokia might succeed on Agreements A to C. The final refundable amounts were set by a subjective adjustment of the relevant mid-point calculations, without pretending to mathematical precision.
5. The parties’ agreed non-refundable payments were accepted. Refundable interim payments were assessed at the redacted sums for Paramount and Warner Bros.