- Federal Court of Justice - BGH –
- OLG Düsseldorf –
- OLG Düsseldorf – I-2 U 23/17
- Sisvel v Haier – I-15 U 66/15
- Sisvel v Haier 2 – 15 U 65/15
- Canon v Carsten Weser – I-15 U 49/15
- Sisvel v Haier 3 – I-15 U 66/15
- Canon v Sieg/Kmp Printtechnik/Part Depot – I-15 U 47/15
- Saint Lawrence v Vodafone – I-15 U 36/16
- Saint Lawrence v Vodafone 2 – I-15 U 35/16
- OLG Düsseldorf 2 – I-2 U 31/16
- OLG Düsseldorf 3 – I-2 W 8/18
- Unwired Planet v Huawei – I-2 U 31/16
- OLG Karlsruhe –
- LG Düsseldorf –
- Sisvel v Haier – 4a O 93/14
- Sisvel v Haier 2 – 4a O 144/14
- Saint Lawrence v Vodafone – 4a O 73/14
- Unwired Planet v Samsung – 4b O 120/14
- Saint Lawrence v Vodafone 2 – 4a O 126/14
- France Brevets v HTC – 4b O 140/13
- District Court, LG Düsseldorf – 4c O 81/17
- Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft (MPEG-LA) v ZTE – 4a O 15/17
- Tagivan (MPEG-LA) v Huawei – 4a O 17/17
- HEVC (Dolby) v MAS Elektronik – 4c O 44/18
- LG Mannheim –
- LG Munich –
- OLG Munich –
- Archos v. Philips, Rechtbank Den Haag – C/09/505587 / HA ZA 16-206 (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:1025)
- Koninklijke Philips N.V.対Asustek Computers INC.、ハーグ控訴裁判所 – 200.221.250/01
- Philips v Wiko, Court of Appeal of The Hague – C/09/511922/HA ZA 16-623
- Sisvel v Xiaomi, Court of The Hague – C/09/573969/ KG ZA 19-462
- Sisvel v Sun Cupid, District Court of The Hague – C/09/582418 HA ZA 19-1123
- Sisvel v Xiaomi, Court of Appeal of The Hague – C/09/573969/ KG ZA 19-462
- TQ Delta LLC v Zyxel Communications and Ors., EWHC – HP-2017-000045,  EWHC 1515 (Ch)
- Apple v Qualcomm,  EWHC 1188 (Pat) – HP-2017-000015
- TQ Delta LLC v Zyxel Communications,  EWHC 3305 (Pat) – HP-2017-000045
- Unwired Planet v Huawei,  EWHC 711 (Pat) – HP-2014-000005
- Unwired Planet v Huawei,  EWHC 1304 (Pat) – HP-2014-000005
- Unwired Planet v Huawei, EWHC – HP-2014-000005
- VRINGO Infrastructure v ZTE,  EWHC 214 (Pat) – HC 2012 000076, HC 2012 000022
- Unwired Planet v Huawei,  EWHC 711 (Pat) 2 – HP-2014-000005
- Conversant v Huawei and ZTE,  EWHC 808 (Pat) – HP-2017-000048
- Unwired Planet v Huawei, UK Court of Appeal – A3/2017/1784,  EWCA Civ 2344
- TQ Delta LLC v Zyxel Communications UK Ltd. and Ors., UK High Court of Justice – HP-2017-000045,  EWHC 2577 (Pat)
- TQ Delta対Zyxel Communications、英国 高等法院 – HP-2017-000045 -  EWHC 745 (Pat)
- Unwired Planet対Huawei Conversant対Huawei 及び ZTE、英国最高裁判所 –  UKSC 37
Case law search
Updated 25 6月 2020
Updated 7 5月 2019
Updated 4 6月 2020
20 1月 2020 - Case No. RG 19/60318
IPCom GmbH & Co. KG (IPCom) acquired over 160 patent families from Robert Bosch in 2017  . IPCom’s Patents cover the 2G, 3G and 4G wireless telecommunications standards  . One of the acquired patents is EP 1 841 268 B1 (EP 268)  , which is essential to the 3G standard  . EP 268 expires on 15 February 2020  . IPCom made a FRAND commitment for its essential patents towards ETSI  .
In 2018, IPCom contacted Lenovo for a licence under its patents, including EP 268  . There were some discussions between the parties  . On 1st March 2019  , IPCom renewed its offer to license Lenovo and requested Lenovo to respond to this offer by 15 March 2019  .
Absent a reply from Lenovo by this date, IPCom stated that it would initiate proceedings against Lenovo for patent infringement  .
On 14 March 2019, US subsidiaries of Lenovo and Motorola filed a claim against IPCom before the District Court for the Northern District of California (US District Court) in the US  . The requested the US District Court to set the terms for a worldwide FRAND licence for IPCom’s portfolio  .
On 4 July 2019, IPCom filed a complaint against the UK subsidiaries of Lenovo and Motorola before the High Court for England and Wales for patent infringement of the UK counterpart of EP 268  .
On 18 September 2019, Lenovo’s and Motorola’s US subsidiaries filed a motion for an anti-suit injunction with the US District Court to prevent IPCom from continuing the infringement proceedings initiated in the UK as well as from filing any further infringement actions in any foreign jurisdiction, as long as there was no final decision on the US complaint  .
On 8 November 2019, the Court of Paris required Lenovo and Motorola to withdraw their anti-suit request with respect to EP 268 by 14 November 2019 the latest  . The anti-anti-suit injunction granted by the Court of Paris also applied to any subsequent request to the same end that would be introduced by Motorola and Lenovo. Lenovo and Motorola’s US counterparts partially withdrew the motion for an anti-suit injunction brought before the US District Court  .
On 14 November 2019, IPCom filed infringement proceedings against Lenovo and Motorola before the Court of Paris  . Before that, on 30 October 2019, IPCom had also sought temporary measures until the patent expiration day, i.e. a preliminary injunction, as well as an order for the recall of all 3G products and the confiscation and sequestration of 3G compliant products  .
With the present judgment, the Court rejected IPCom’s request for a preliminary injunction, holding that it was not proportionate and that it could provide an unjustified advantage to IPCom that could lead the company to negotiate licensing terms and conditions that would not be FRAND  .
B. Court’s reasoning
With respect to the request for a preliminary injunction, the Court applied Article L615-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code. This provision allows courts to order urgent measures to prevent an irreparable damage to be caused to the right-holder  . For this, it is required that patent infringement is likely and the damages potentially suffered cannot be compensated by monetary payments  .
The Court also took recourse to the EU Directive 2004/48, which provides that preliminary measures should be proportionate considering the specificity of a dispute on a case by case basis  .
The Court concluded that there was no irreparable harm to IPCom that could not be compensated by damages, if a preliminary injunction would be denied.  IPCom had claimed that the absence of an injunction would put existing licensees at a disadvantage and that a request for interim measures could not be considered as abusive, given the fact that the absence of a preliminary injunction would reduce the value of its patent portfolio  . The Court was not convinced that this would be the case. Moreover, the Court placed weight on the fact that IPCom did not practise the patents itself and, therefore, did not face a risk to lose market shares by competing products infringing IPCom’s rights  .
On the other hand, the Court found that an injunction, even of a temporary nature (until the patent expiration date, i.e. 15 February 2020), affecting almost all Lenovo and Motorola products, would heavily impact these companies. In addition, such an abrupt withdrawal of most of the products from the market would harm the reputation of the defendants and impair the distribution operations of Digital River  .
Lenovo and Motorola had argued that IPCom’s request was disproportionate  . They highlighted that the injunction request applied to most of their cellphones and tablets, what would lead to a serious financial harm  . In their view, IPCom’s behaviour was not FRAND, because IPCom did not wait for the end of the negotiations between the parties on the first offer to submit a second offer that was not negotiable  . And IPCom filed infringement procedures in the UK and France, instead of negotiating a FRAND license under the US proceedings  . Apart from that, Lenovo and Motorola claimed that the patent was not essential to a mandatory, but only to an optional portion of the standard  . They also added that the patent was close to expiration and IPCom did not exploit the patent itself  . Therefore, there was no harm that could not be compensated by financial damages  .
The injunction would impact Lenovo and Motorola market share, including on the new 5G market, and affect their reputation towards main telecom operators  .
C. Other issues
Translation of documents
Modelabs argued that IPCom had breached a French law dated 1539Ordonnance de Villers-Cotterêts by providing documents that were in their majority drafted in English instead of French. This behaviour violated Modelabs’ right to an equitable process  . The Court pointed out that, since Modelabs imports and commercialises electronic products in France, it had to understand English  . Additionally, IPCom had provided documents in French  . Therefore, the Court found that Modelabs’ right to an equitable process was not violated  .
Patent ownership / Transfer of patents
The defendants challenged IPCom’s ownership of the patent in suit  . They claimed that the patent had not been assigned to IPCom. Would the assignment from Robert Bosch to IPCom, nonetheless, have taken place, there had been a second assignment, since IPCom had merged with another company and as a result of the merger, a new company was created, IPCom GmbH & Co  .
The Court highlighted that neither Robert Bosch nor the inventors had made any claim under the patent  . Additionally, IPCom published the assignment and justified the transfer  . The merger came with a transfer of all IPCom assets to IPCom GmbH & Co  . The merger and the change of name were notified to the French Patent Office on 13 September 2019 and was published before the notification of the writ of summons to the defendants  .
-  Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 2.
-  Ibidem
-  Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 3.
-  Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 13.
-  Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 8.
-  Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 14.
-  Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 4.
-  Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 5.
-  Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, pages 4-7.
-  Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 17.
-  Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, pages 10- 11.
-  Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 10.
-  Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, pages 11, 14-16.
-  Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page17.
-  Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 15.
-  Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 16.
-  Ordonnance de Villers-Cotterêts
-  Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 9.
-  Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 11.
-  Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 12.
-  Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 12-13.
Updated 7 5月 2019
18 3月 2019 - Case No. HP-2017-000045 -  EWHC 745 (Pat)
原告TQ Delta LLCは、一定のxDSL規格のプラクティスに関してITU勧告の下で必須のものとして宣言済みの特許（標準必須特許又はＳＥＰ）を保有している。ITU勧告は、非差別合理的（Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory：RAND）条件で実施者がＳＥＰを利用できるようにすることをSEP保有者に求めている。
被告であるZyxel Communications Ltd.及びZyxel Communications A/Sは、DSL規格に準拠した様々なタイプの機器を製造し販売している。
被告は、原告に対して一切支払いを行っていなかった  。 また、被告は、裁判所がRANDと判断する条件で（全世界又は英国を対象とする）ライセンスを取得するとの確認も訴訟の過程において拒否していた  。
裁判所は、技術的トライアルとRANDトライアルを並行して行った  。2019年3月11日、裁判所は技術的トライアルに関し、係争中の特許のうち１つは有効かつ必須で、侵害を受けている、他方の特許は無効であるものの、仮に有効であれば必須であったはずで、また侵害が存在したであろうと判断した  。有効かつ必須で侵害を受けているとされた特許は、2019年6月25日に期限切れとなるものだった  。RANDトライアルは2019年9月に行われることとなった。
2019年3月18日、裁判所は知術的トライアルから発せられる命令の形について検討した  。裁判所は、被告に対して即時差止を命じた。更に、裁判所は、クライアントから受けた既存の注文で侵害製品についての一定のものを被告が処理できるようにするための差止命令の一時停止及び差止命令からの除外(Curve-out)を認めなかった。また、裁判所は、被告が本事件について上訴を提起する許可も与えなかった。 
本事件において差止命令を出すべきか否かを検討する上で、裁判所は被告の行為を特に重視した。裁判所は、係争中の特許の１つについて原告へのロイヤルティの支払なしに長年にわたって侵害を続けることで被告が「ホールドアウト(hold-out)」を行っており、裁判所による適切なRAND決定の結果に従うことも拒んでいるため、差止命令の発出を拒否する理由はないと判断した  。
裁判所は、これらの状況下で差止命令による救済を与えないことは、ZyXEL [被告]が差止命令を回避して「ホールドアウト」戦略から利益を得ることを可能にし、[F]RANDライセンスの条件が被告の希望通りでなかった場合に裁判所が適切とみなす条件でのライセンス締結を拒否することも可能にするため「不公平（unjust）」  であるとの見解を示した 。更に、裁判所は、原告から差止による救済を奪うことは、事実上（in effect）裁判所による強制実施許諾に等しく、原則上不適当である（wrong in principle）とした  。裁判所は、このような背景に照らして、裁判所の決定から数か月後には係争中の特許が期限切れになる状況下で差止命令を出すことは不均衡（disproportionate）であるとの被告の主張を退けた。
また、裁判所は、クライアントからの既存注文で一定のものを被告が履行できるよう被告が求めた差止命令の１か月間の一時停止を認める理由はなく、差止命令からの除外(carve-out) を認める理由もないと判断した  。被告からは、即時差止から生じる可能性のある不利益の評価を可能にするための十分な証拠が提出されていなかった  。
更に、裁判所は、差止命令の判決について被告が上訴を提起することへの許可も与えなかった。裁判所は、控訴院がUnwired Planet 対Huawei の事件における最近の判決で、この問題についての正しい一般原則を既に示しているため、上訴の許可を与えることは不適当（wrong）であると判断した  。その上、裁判所は、差止命令を発する判断は（裁判所の）裁量権の行使であり、それについての上訴は一般的に困難で、上訴が成功する可能性は低いとの見解を示した。また、差止命令の発出を拒否することは、「被告が [F]RAND誓約を強制しないことを選択している状況下で特許権者の排他的権利について強制実施許諾を行うことに等しく、特許権者から意味のある保護措置を奪うものである」ため、裁判所の判断は十分な根拠に基づいているとした  。
-  TQ Delta対Zyxel Communications、英国高等法院、2019年3月18日判決、第6節。
-  同判決、第10節。
-  TQ Delta 対Zyxel Communications、英国高等法院2017年11月21日判決、 EWHC 3305 (Pat)を参照のこと。 www.4ipcouncil.com.上で要約の閲覧可能。
-  TQ Delta 対Zyxel Communications、英国高等法院2019年3月11日判決、 EWHC 562 (ChD)を参照のこと。
-  TQ Delta対Zyxel Communications、英国高等法院2019年3月18日判決、第2節
-  RANDトライアルの過程において、裁判所は、とりわけ秘密情報に当たる可能性のある情報の訴訟における取り扱いについて暫定的判断を下した。TQ Delta 対 Zyxel Communications、英国高等法院2018年6月13日判決  EWHC 1515 (Ch)、2018年9月28日判決  EWHC 2577 (Pat)、及び2018年10月11日判決  EWHC 2677 (Pat)を参照のこと。 www.4ipcouncil.com.上で要約の閲覧可能。
-  TQ Delta対Zyxel Communications、英国高等法院2019年3月18日判決、第19節。
-  同判決、第12節。
-  同判決、第13節。
-  同判決、第14節。
-  同判決、第15節。
-  同判決、第16節以下。
-  Unwired Planet 対Huawei、英国控訴院 2018年10月23日判決、事件番号A3/2017/1784、 EWCA Civ 2244、第53節及び第54節。www.4ipcouncil.com.上で要約の閲覧可能。
-  TQ Delta対Zyxel Communications、英国高等法院2019年3月18日判決、第22節。
Updated 4 6月 2020
17 3月 2020 - Case No. C/09/573969/ KG ZA 19-462
Sisvel International S.A. (Sisvel) is the parent company of the Sisvel group  . In 2012, Sisvel acquired EP 1 129 536 B1 (EP 536)  . EP 536 relates to the EGPRS technology, which forms part of a GSM telecommunications standard that implements EDGE  .
Xiaomi is a manufacturer of mobile phones with headquarters in China  .
On 10 April 2013, Sisvel submitted to the European Telecommunication Standards Institute (ETSI) a declaration under which it committed to make a list of patents, including EP 536, accessible to standard users under Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms and conditions (FRAND commitment)  .
On 15 October 2013, Sisvel notified Xiaomi about its Wireless Patent Portfolio  . On 16 July 2014, Sisvel sent a letter to Xiaomi, inviting Xiaomi to contact Sisvel regarding to the conclusion of a licence  . Further e-mails were sent to Xiaomi on 3 December 2014, 4 December 2014 and 5 March 2015  .
On 23 April 2019, Sisvel initiated legal proceedings against Xiaomi before the English High Court of Justice in London (English proceedings)  . Sisvel requested the court to declare that the terms and conditions of the MCP Pool Licence, under which EP 536 as part of the Wireless Patent Portfolio is licensed  , are FRAND or alternatively, to determine FRAND licensing terms and conditions and find three patents (including EP 536) to be valid and infringed  .
On 30 August 2019, Xiaomi filed two legal actions against Sisvel in Beijing  . Xiaomi asked, in one of the cases, the court to determine FRAND terms and conditions for a licence limited to China and, in the other case, to declare that Sisvel had abused its dominant position  .
In the Netherlands, Sisvel requested a preliminary injunction against Xiaomi, until Xiaomi accepts Sisvel’s offer to go to arbitration, as well as the recall and destruction of products, information over profit made and additional documentation with respect to resellers, a penalty fee, and – as a subsidiary motion – the removal of the EGPRS/EDGE extension of the GSM functionality  . With judgment dated 1 August 2019, the Court of The Hague rejected Sisvel’s claims in first instance and sentenced Sisvel to the process costs, in view of the balance of interests between the parties and the complexity of the case  .
Sisvel appealed the first instance decision on 29 August 2019  . During the course of the appeal proceedings, on 22 January 2020, Xiaomi deposited funds  on an escrow account held by Intertrust  . With the present judgment, the Court of Appeal of The Hague (Court) rejected Sisvel’s appeal and sentenced Sisvel to higher process costs  .
B. Court’s reasoning
The Court focused on the balance of interests between the parties.
The Court considered that the harm caused to Sisvel by the infringement of EP 536 was limited, taking into account only infringing uses in the Netherlands, as well as the fact that EP 536 is only one out of many patents held by Sisvel, and almost expired  . Considering that Sisvel’s business model is to conclude licences, Sisvel did not have to fear damages caused by free riding on the cellphone market, but only damages resulting from denied profits under a license  . Therefore, only financial damages could incur which the Court considers to be relatively simply compensated at a later point in time  . Additionally, Xiaomi had provided security  . The security addresses the problem raised by Sisvel, i.e. Xiaomi becoming insolvent and unable to pay damages for patent infringement  .
With respect to Xiaomi’s interest, the Court noted that an injunction would force Xiaomi to stop sales, close shops in the Netherlands and stop its distribution contracts with customers  . The consequences would thus be severe and could hardly be undone, even if Xiaomi could resume sales again after the expiration of EP 536  . The only way for Xiaomi to avoid those consequences would be to take a license, which also brings important consequences. Indeed, the MCP license offered by Sisvel is not only for EP 536 but for more than 1000 patents in all countries worldwide  . By accepting a licence Xiaomi would be irrevocably bound to comply with it, including with its rate  . The stop of sales in the Netherlands would create loss of profits for Xiaomi and worsen its relationships with its customers  . The Court highlighted such damages are difficult to evaluate as Xiaomi is still building its market position and there are many other players on the market  .
The Court further argued that the case was complex for a preliminary decision, because it required an opinion on the validity and scope of a patent protecting a complex technology as well as an assessment of Xiaomi’s FRAND defence, for which parties have arguments over many facts and the principles to determine a FRAND rate  . Additionally, the court that would be entrusted with the main proceedings could have a different opinion on the validity of the technology and the FRAND defence  . Therefore, the Court concluded there was no reason, even if the patent was valid and the FRAND defence had to be rejected, to force Xiaomi to leave the Dutch market or to take a licence from Sisvel  . The Court found that Xiaomi’s interest to reject the request for a preliminary injunction was stronger than Sisvel’s interest to stop the continuation of the infringement  .
The Court also rejected Sisvel’s claim that Xiaomi was an unwilling licensee  . Such claim could be used to invalidate Xiaomi’s FRAND defence, but the Court stated that the examination of Xiaomi’s FRAND defence had to be separated from the balance of interests’ assessment in preliminary proceedings  .
Reviewing Sisvel’s request based on the EU enforcement directive 2004/48 and Article 9 of such directive did not lead the Court to another conclusion: in light of the enforcement directive, the injunction would not be proportionate in this case, therefore the Court had no obligation to use Article 9 of the EU enforcement directive  .
Even in combining the application of Article 3 of the EU enforcement directive, Article 5, 17 and 47 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights the Court came to the same interpretation: an injunction for the limited remaining time of EP 536 would not help  . The lack of an injunction would not unreasonably delay the case as the Court argued that the effective remedy would be compensation for the damages in main proceedings  . Additionally, the Court found this conclusion to be supported by the fact that Sisvel had only initiated main proceedings against other parties in the Netherlands and abroad  .
Sisvel’s claim that the lack of an injunction would create an unfair playing field between market participants was also rejected by the Court  . The Court stated that Xiaomi’s security and the possibility for Sisvel to get compensation for damages in main proceedings created an equal playing field  . Sisvel had relied on a decision of the Dutch Supreme Court, according to which a patent can only be effectively protected if there is a quick stop to further infringement  . The Court explained that this is the case only when the damages for patent infringement are difficult to determine; this was, however, not the case here  .
The Court rejected Sisvel’s claim that the deposit on the escrow account had been made in such a way that it would be impossible for Sisvel to get paid  . Indeed, the Court underlined that Sisvel can unilaterally reclaim payment, especially if a FRAND rate is determined in the English proceedings  . Moreover, Xiaomi declared itself to be ready to adapt the amount placed on the escrow account in close cooperation with Sisvel, if Sisvel wishes to do so or has requests about the escrow account  . The Court noted it did not seem Sisvel made use of this possibility to adapt the amount  .
The amount deposited for fees under Sisvel’s MCP Patent Licence was considered as sufficient by the Court for the products sold in the Netherlands for the lifetime of EP 536  . The Court added that this would still be the case even in the event that Sisvel wanted to increase the licensing rate for non-compliant users or to account for profits based on the infringement  . The Court underlined that in the Huawei v. ZTE decision of the CJEU  , the security had to be “appropriate”, which depends on the context of the FRAND defence  .
Recall and destruction of products
Sisvel’s request to have infringing products recalled and destroyed, as well as all mentions about those products removed, resellers informed and profits provided was rejected by the Court  . Sisvel had asserted the same urgent interest as for the preliminary injunction to support this request: stopping and preventing infringement of EP 536. Since the request for a preliminary injunction failed, the further claims asserted by Sisvel had to follow the same fate  . The Court stated that there was no urgent interest to have Xiaomi disclosing its profits, or at least that was more important than having Xiaomi keeping this information confidential  . Sisvel did also not explain why profits data should be disclosed in advance of the main proceedings  .
C. Other important issues
The Court also denied Sisvel’s request to grant a preliminary injunction, as long as Xiaomi did not agree to initiating arbitration procedures  . The Court argued that if Xiaomi would be forced to have an arbitration tribunal determining the terms and conditions for all patents of the MCP Patent Licence for the whole world, this would deprive Xiaomi of its fundamental right of access to a court  . The acceptance of such arbitration proposal without conditions would have drastic consequences on Xiaomi’s position  .
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 2, par.2.2.
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 2, par.2.4.
-  Ibidem
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 2, par.2.8.
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 2, par.2.5.
-  Dutch newspaper.
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 4, par.2.11.
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 4, par.2.12.
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, pages 3 and 4, par.2.7 and 2.12.
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 4, par.2.13.
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 4, par.2.14.
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, pages 4 and 5, par.3.3.
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 2, par.1.
-  Amount has been redacted.
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 5, par.3.5.
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, pages 10 and 11, par. 4.24 and following.
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 5, par.4.3.
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, pages 5 and 6, par.4.3.
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 6, par.4.3.
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 6, par.4.7.
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, pages 6 and 7, par.4.8.
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 7, par.4.9.
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 7, par.4.11.
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 7, par.2.12.
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 8, par.4.14.
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 8, par.4.15.
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 8, par.4.16.
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, pages 8 and 9, par.4.17.
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 6, par. 4.5.
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 6, par. 4.6.
-  Court of Justice of the European Union, Huawei Technologies Co.Ltd. v. ZTE Corp. and ZTE Deutschland GmbH, 16 July 2015.
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 9, par. 4.2.1.
-  Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 9, par.4.18.