Apple Inc & Ors v Powermat Technologies Ltd

Internal documents concerning a FRAND licence are not ordinarily disclosed, but limited disclosure may be justified where the licence is central and a sufficiently supported case raises a material question about whether it was bespoke or strategically structured. The request must still be proportionate; if it is too broad, the court may require a narrower, workable proposal. Sensitivity and confidentiality alone do not preclude disclosure, while privilege remains protected.

At a case management conference in FRAND proceedings, Apple Inc, Apple Distribution International Limited and Apple Retail UK Limited (together, Apple) faced an application by Powermat Technologies Ltd for specific disclosure concerning the Via LA licence. The licence was central to Apple’s case and the proceedings. Powermat pleaded that it was a bespoke agreement, strategically designed to produce a non-RAND result for use as a comparable. A request for negotiation communications was agreed in modified form. Powermat also sought other documents, including internal material concerning negotiation of Attachment 3A. The court considered whether proportionate disclosure beyond the negotiation documents was justified and also addressed the evidence timetable and expedition.

Powermat’s specific disclosure application was granted in part, and case management directions were made.

1. The modified form of Request 1, for communications about the licence known to both sides to the negotiations, was agreed. No further ruling on that request was required (para [2]).

2. Request 2, for “all other documents” relating to the licence, was too broad to order as framed. The pleaded allegation that the licence was bespoke and intended to achieve a non-RAND result was adequately supported both to proceed to trial and to justify an appropriate degree of documentation. Although UK courts had generally resisted disclosure of internal documents in FRAND cases, limited disclosure had been ordered on some occasions. This was an exceptional case because the licence was central and the surrounding circumstances made the question whether it was bespoke material. Proportionate disclosure going beyond negotiation documents was therefore appropriate (paras [4]–[8]).

   Apple was directed to propose a workable scope promptly. An approval memorandum and surrounding presentations addressing strategy and objectives were given as guidance, not as the formal order. The documents’ sensitivity and confidentiality did not prevent disclosure. Privileged documents would not be inspected in due course (para [7]).

3. The court set June for the close of evidence, excluding the joint experts’ statement, which could follow later. The joint statement should not bring forward disputes that ought to have crystallised during the evidence rounds (paras [9], [11]).

4. The action was not expedited. The claim had been issued in March 2026, with the second round of reply evidence expected in July 2027; the case’s complexity and timetable made completion of evidence by June feasible. The financial stakes did not change that assessment. The later proposed date for the next case management conference allowed time for possible consequences of the judgment concerning disclosure and the interim payment (paras [9]–[12]).