欧州におけるSEP訴訟に現在3つの中心地がある。UPC, ドイツ地裁（複数）、そしてUK裁判所である。その3箇所すべてで訴訟提起されているPanasonic v. Xiaomi事案で、Panasonicはドイツミュンヘン地裁とUK原審（注）で勝訴していたものの、今回UK控訴審で逆転敗訴した。
（注）原審Panasonic v. Xiomi[2024]EWHC 1733(Pat), 5 July 2024, Leech裁判官。PanasonicにはXiaomiの求めるInterim Licenceを締結する義務はない。また国際礼譲により、ドイツ及びUPC訴訟でのFRAND抗弁はドイツ裁判所、UPCでなされるべきとして、XiaomiのInterim Licence申立を棄却した。
UK控訴審はPanasonic が大陸での並行訴訟のかたわら差止命令の不執行を撤回修正し、Interim Licenceの締結を拒絶したことでPanasonicをwilling licensorとは認められないと判示した。Arnold裁判官は”In my judgment Panasonic’s conduct is indefensible（弁護の余地なし）”とまで述べ、この控訴の意義まで疑問視している[45]。判決を行った3人の裁判官で2：1に分かれたものの判決[101]では
「 (1) パナソニックは、グローバルライセンスのFRAND条件を決定するために英国の裁判所の管轄権を援用し、両当事者が特許裁判所によってFRANDと決定された条件でライセンスを締結することを約束したにもかかわらず、外国の裁判所で差止請求を追求することはETSI IPRポリシーの第6.1条に基づく誠実義務に違反する。(2) パナソニックはXiaomiとInterim Licenceを締結し、そのライセンスのFRAND条件は前段階で定められたものにする。(3) Xiaomiが求めた宣言を行うことで有益な目的は果たされる。(4) 国際礼譲を理由に宣言を拒否すべきではない。」と判示された。
今後、本案の英国裁判所におけるGlobal FRANDレートの決定が本年末か来年初めと予定されている(Richard Meade裁判官）のでこのまま進行するが、Panasonicにとっては予想外の展開となった。
英国の動きはさらにドイツのUPCマンハイムDIVに影響した。
MLEX情報（10月7日付Paywall)によればPanasonic v. Xiaomi・OPPOのUPC(Mannheim, EP2,568,724)訴訟は両当事者の申立でSTAYされ、UKでのFRANDレート決定を待つ展開となった。もっともXiomiはまだInterim Licenseに署名しておらず、一方でEU競争当局に対してPanasonicの競争法違反の申立も行っている。本UPC事案は10月7日-9日に口頭弁論が予定されていたが、Panasonic v. OPPOのみが審理されることになった。
UK控訴審判決文 2024年10月3日
LORD JUSTICE MOYLAN
LORD JUSTICE ARNOLD
LORD JUSTICE PHILLIPS
なお、UK原審 Justice Leech裁判官 [2024] EWHC 1733 (Pat)
ロンドン在住の日高誓子UK弁護士が本事案について概要を整理していただいているので以下紹介する。文末に本事案への感想も付記いただいた。
Panasonic v. Xiaomiの訴訟背景 Background
2011 – Xiaomi launches 3G smartphone in China
2017 – 2018 Xiaomi launches in western Europe [Market share in the UK at present: 4%]
2023 (Jun) – Panasonic files Declaratory FRAND claim in Beijing
2023 (Jul/Aug) – Panasonic sues for SEP infringement claims in the UPC (Mannheim (3 SEPs), Munich (3SEPs) / German national proceedings(Mannheim (3 SEPs), Munich (4 SEPs) - seeks injunction / Panasonic sues SEP infringement & asks for FRAND rate setting in the UK
Both parties agreed to abide by the UK Court Determined Licence
2023 (Dec.7) – Xiaomi applies for an Interim Licence Application, on the basis that Panasonic was required to enter into an Interim Licence to comply with its FRAND Commitment, and a declaration that pursuing injunctions in against Xiaomi in DE, UPC in the circumstances [where Xiaomi had undertook to accept UK Court determined Licence and applied for an Interim Licence] was not FRAND /unwilling.
Xiaomi's position was that Panasonic is aiming to force Xiaomi to agree supra-FRAND royalties by pursuing injunctions in other jurisdictions. Xiaomi said it had the right to receive a FRAND licence now. Xiaomi makes an interim licence offer (Xiaomi would pay Panasonic an interim royalty for the period from Xiaomi's first sale in 2011 until UK Court's FRAND determination at Xiaomi's stated FRAND rate, together with 5% interest compounded quarterly in respect of past sales – subject to adjustments depending on the outcome of the FRAND Trial).
Panasonic's response position: Wrong for the UK Court to make the declaration sought, because Xiaomi's sole purpose was to influence a foreign Court and avoid any injunction. Panasonic has foreign patents and it is entitled to enforce them. The German Court and UPC Court should decide whether Panasonic is a willing licensor and whether it is entitled to an injunction. Xiaomi does not need to enter into an Interim Licence to further demonstrate willingness for the UK proceedings. Panasonic makes an Offer Not to Enforce any patents if Xiaomi will pay what Panasonic says is the FRAND rate, for the full term (2011-2029), with the ability to true up [NOTE: they did not offer to true down] depending on the outcome of the FRAND Trial + compound interest on past royalties.
UK First Instance
The Court of First Instance (High Court), largely accepted Panasonic's position
UK Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal overturned the First Instance decision.
The Court of Appeal said the key question is what is the point of Panasonic continuing to sue Xiaomi in German and UPC Court in respect of in total 13 patents, when it is certain that, in the relatively near future (hopefully before Christmas 2024, if not early 2025), the UK Court will determine FRAND terms which the parties said they will accept.
The Court of Appeal answered thus:
As counsel for Panasonic had to accept during the course of argument in this Court, Panasonic seeks to achieve better terms than those determined by the Patents Court. Put bluntly, Panasonic wishes to use the exclusionary power of injunctions granted by the German courts and/or the UPC to try to force Xiaomi to pay more than the English courts would order.
Panasonic must think that there is some prospect of the German Proceedings achieving this, otherwise it would not be wasting a large amount of time and money on them. Contrary to Panasonic's submission, it is no answer to this that a range of terms may be FRAND, because that will be taken into account by the Patents Court in its determination… in this case Panasonic has itself invoked the jurisdiction of the English courts to determine what is FRAND on a global basis, and has undertaken to accept the determination of the Patents Court on that question. It is wholly inconsistent with that for Panasonic to try to force Xiaomi to agree to terms more favourable to Panasonic than the English courts would order by pursuing proceedings elsewhere… Panasonic's conduct is indefensible.
In my judgment the terms on which a willing licensor in the position of Panasonic would grant an interim licence to Xiaomi are those proposed by Panasonic for the final licence with two modifications. First, the period of the interim licence should be from 2011 until the licence determined by the Patents Court takes effect (rather than until 2029 contended for by Panasonic). For the convenience of calculating the royalty payable, it may be assumed that the latter date will be 31 December 2024. Secondly, the sum payable by way of royalty in respect of that period should be midway between (i) the sum offered by Xiaomi for that period and (ii) the proportion of the sum demanded by Panasonic on 13 September 2024 [Panasonic's latest offer] that is referrable, on a pro rata basis, to the period of the interim licence. This sum (and the accompanying licence terms) will be subject to adjustment up or down when the Patents Court determines the terms of the final licence.
Conclusion of the Court of Appeal
(1) Panasonic is in breach of its obligation of good faith under clause 6.1 of the ETSI IPR Policy by pursuing claims for injunctions in foreign courts despite having invoked the jurisdiction of the English courts to determine FRAND terms for a global licence and despite both parties having undertaken to enter into a licence on the terms determined by the Patents Court to be FRAND; (2) a willing licensor in the position of Panasonic would enter into an interim licence with Xiaomi, and FRAND terms of that licence would be those set out in the preceding paragraph; (3) making the declarations sought by Xiaomi would serve a useful purpose; and (4) the declarations should not be refused on the grounds of comity.
（日高UK弁護士の感想）
Panasonicは、英国裁判所の判決にかかわらず、ドイツ・UPCの訴訟を進行するオプションがあるので、国際礼譲に反さないと判示されていますが、個人的な意見ですが、英国裁判所は傲慢だ、管轄の拡張だという様な意見が飛び交いそうな気がします。本UK訴訟を撤回することもPanasonicのオプションとしてあります。
対比するケースローとして、Lenovo v InterDigitalがあります。Panasonicとは違って、この訴訟ではInterDigitalは英国で提訴せずドイツでSEPを行使し、同じ時期にLenovoが平行して英国裁判所で提訴し、FRANDライセンスの設定を要求したもので、InterDigital側としては、仲裁か、Orange Book Proceedingsを介してドイツでライセンスの条件を決めるべき、という位置づけです［が、英国裁判所はInterDigitalがドイツでLenovoを訴え、差し止めを求めている事実は思わしくない、とコメントしています］。同じくLenovo はInterim Licenceを求めましたが、一審ではこの請求は通りませんでした。Panasonic v XiaomiのCourt of Appealの判決によって、覆される可能性はありますが（そもそもLenovoはAppealしたかは存じませんが）InterDigitalは英国で提訴しなかった事（SEP保有者はFRAND設定の方法・管轄を決める権利があるという考え方により）がポイントになると思います。Lenovo v InterDigitalの判決は：https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2024/596.html
また、Lenovo v Ericssonでも同じくLenovoによるInterim LicenceのApplicationがありました。このApplicationの判決はまだ出されていません。Ericssonも英国裁判所で提訴せず、USのEDNCでFRAND設定を請求、また並行してITC, Brazil, Columbiaで差し止めを請求し、BrazilとColumbiaでは差し止めを取得したそうです（控訴Pendingかもしれませんが）。
Comments