Nokia v OnePlus (EWCA, [2022] EWCA Civ 947, 2022)

Dhenne Avocats · 11 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

The Court of Appeal (England and Wales) refused to decline jurisdiction over, or to stay, Nokia’s infringement claim against OPPO in favour of the claim brought by OPPO in the Chongqing Court for the determination of the terms of a global FRAND licence. Arnold LJ characterised the dispute as a claim to enforce UK patents in which the FRAND undertaking is raised by way of defence (para 44). Even if characterised as a dispute over the terms of the global licence alone, it has no natural forum and England is clearly an appropriate forum (para 66). The judgment confirms, after Brexit and the Supreme People’s Court’s decision in OPPO v Sharp, the English court’s jurisdiction to set global FRAND terms in the context of an infringement claim.

Facts and procedure

Nokia holds a global portfolio of patents declared essential to the 3G, 4G and 5G standards, including three European Patents (UK); OPPO was licensed from 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2021 (para 1). Nokia issued its claim on 1 July 2021; on 13 July 2021 OPPO asked the Chongqing Court to determine the terms of a global licence and undertook to Nokia to enter into it (para 2). The parties were also in dispute in many other countries, and the Mannheim Regional Court had found one patent infringed (para 6). It was common ground that a FRAND licence would be global and would include a cross-licence (paras 24 and 25). HHJ Hacon dismissed OPPO’s forum non conveniens and stay applications on 4 November 2021 (para 2).

The applicable law

As against the Chinese defendants, Nokia must show that England is clearly the appropriate forum; as against the English defendants, OPPO must show that another forum is more appropriate (para 27). Since Brexit, the Brussels I Regulation (recast) and Owusu no longer preclude a forum non conveniens stay (paras 4 and 28). The characterisation of the dispute, viewed as a whole, drives the analysis (paras 30 to 33). A case management stay is justified only in rare or compelling circumstances (para 67).

Question

Should the English court decline jurisdiction over, or stay, a claim for infringement of UK SEPs where the implementer, which accepts a global licence, has asked a Chinese court to determine its terms?

Decision

OPPO’s acceptance of a global licence is a factual distinction of no relevance: OPPO maintains its validity and essentiality challenges (para 40), its undertaking only covers terms set in Chongqing and is therefore not forum-neutral (para 42), and only an injunction enables the SEP owner to enforce its rights (para 43). The dispute was therefore correctly characterised and only a UK court can try it (paras 44 and 46). Even if the dispute were confined to the licence terms, the Chongqing Court would be an alternative forum (para 51), but the factors relied on, including the location of sales, do not connect that dispute with any territory (paras 53 to 55 and 66). The refusal of a stay, a discretionary decision, disclosed no error; OPPO simply wants the FRAND issues decided in the forum of its choice (paras 74 to 79). The appeal was dismissed (para 80).

Key points for practice

• The SEP owner’s claim is characterised as a claim for infringement of UK patents, with the FRAND undertaking as a defence, even where the implementer accepts a global licence (paras 39 to 44).
• An implementer’s undertaking to accept only terms set by a foreign forum is not neutral and does not alter the characterisation (para 42).
• Arnold LJ would have given weight to the likely application of Chinese law and of hard-edged non-discrimination in Chongqing as a legitimate juridical advantage for Nokia (paras 58 and 79).
• Practical point: an implementer wishing for an early FRAND determination may forgo its validity and essentiality challenges for the purposes of the claim; arbitration remains the only supranational means of resolution (paras 17, 40 and 78).

Provisions applied

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 24(4) and 27 (cited; no longer applicable in the UK since Brexit)

ETSI IPR Policy

clause 6.1

National law

Civil Procedure Rules, rr 1.2(a) and 3.1(2)(f)

Case law cited

Unwired Planet v Huawei and Conversant v Huawei [2020] UKSC 37; Conversant v Huawei [2018] EWHC 808 (Pat) and [2019] EWCA Civ 38; Supreme People’s Court of China, OPPO v Sharp, 19 August 2021; ECJ, Owusu v Jackson, C-281/02; Spiliada Maritime v Cansulex (1987); Altimo v Kyrgyz Mobil [2011] UKPC 7; Lungowe v Vedanta [2019] UKSC 20; VTB Capital v Nutritek [2013] UKSC 5; Re Harrods (Buenos Aires) [1992] Ch 72; Reichhold Norway v Goldman Sachs [2000] 1 WLR 173; Optis v Apple [2021] EWHC 2564 (Pat)

Related decisions

• Unwired Planet v Huawei, UK Supreme Court, 26 August 2020, decided together with Conversant, whose characterisation of the dispute is followed.
• OPPO v Sharp, Supreme People’s Court of China, 19 August 2021, recognising Chinese jurisdiction to set global FRAND terms, relied on by OPPO.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the text of the decision (National Archives), consulted on 11 October 2026. Only the official text is authoritative.