Case Law post CJEU ruling Huawei v ZTE

Case law search


Updated 25 June 2020

IPCom v Lenovo, Court of Paris

French court decisions
20 January 2020 - Case No. RG 19/60318

A. Facts

In 2014, Lenovo acquired Motorola [1] . Both companies have a French subsidiary [2] .

Digital River Ireland Limited sells Lenovo products on Lenovo’s French website [3] . Modelabs Mobile S.A. (Modelabs) imports Motorola devices in France alongside Lenovo [2] .

IPCom GmbH & Co. KG (IPCom) acquired over 160 patent families from Robert Bosch in 2017 [1] . IPCom’s Patents cover the 2G, 3G and 4G wireless telecommunications standards [2] . One of the acquired patents is EP 1 841 268 B1 (EP 268) [2] , which is essential to the 3G standard [4] . EP 268 expires on 15 February 2020 [5] . IPCom made a FRAND commitment for its essential patents towards ETSI [6] .

In 2018, IPCom contacted Lenovo for a licence under its patents, including EP 268 [4] . There were some discussions between the parties [2] . On 1st March 2019 [2] , IPCom renewed its offer to license Lenovo and requested Lenovo to respond to this offer by 15 March 2019 [3] .

Absent a reply from Lenovo by this date, IPCom stated that it would initiate proceedings against Lenovo for patent infringement [2] .

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 [2] . The requested the US District Court to set the terms for a worldwide FRAND licence for IPCom’s portfolio [2] .

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 [7] .

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 [3] .

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 [7] . 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 [2] .

On 14 November 2019, IPCom filed infringement proceedings against Lenovo and Motorola before the Court of Paris [8] . 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 [9] .

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 [10] .

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 [11] . For this, it is required that patent infringement is likely and the damages potentially suffered cannot be compensated by monetary payments [12] .

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 [13] .

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. [14] 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 [15] . 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 [16] .

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 [16] .

Lenovo and Motorola had argued that IPCom’s request was disproportionate [4] . They highlighted that the injunction request applied to most of their cellphones and tablets, what would lead to a serious financial harm [2] . 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 [2] . And IPCom filed infringement procedures in the UK and France, instead of negotiating a FRAND license under the US proceedings [2] . 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 [2] . They also added that the patent was close to expiration and IPCom did not exploit the patent itself [2] . Therefore, there was no harm that could not be compensated by financial damages [2] .

The injunction would impact Lenovo and Motorola market share, including on the new 5G market, and affect their reputation towards main telecom operators [6] .

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 [18] . The Court pointed out that, since Modelabs imports and commercialises electronic products in France, it had to understand English [2] . Additionally, IPCom had provided documents in French [2] . Therefore, the Court found that Modelabs’ right to an equitable process was not violated [2] .

Patent ownership / Transfer of patents

The defendants challenged IPCom’s ownership of the patent in suit [19] . 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 [2] .

The Court highlighted that neither Robert Bosch nor the inventors had made any claim under the patent [20] . Additionally, IPCom published the assignment and justified the transfer [21] . The merger came with a transfer of all IPCom assets to IPCom GmbH & Co [20] . 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 [4] .

  • [1] Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 2.
  • [2] Ibidem
  • [3] Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 3.
  • [4] Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 13.
  • [5] Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 8.
  • [6] Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 14.
  • [7] Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 4.
  • [8] Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 5.
  • [9] Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, pages 4-7.
  • [10] Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 17.
  • [11] Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, pages 10- 11.
  • [12] Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 10.
  • [13] Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, pages 11, 14-16.
  • [14] Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page17.
  • [15] Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 15.
  • [16] Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 16.
  • [17] Ordonnance de Villers-Cotterêts
  • [18] Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 9.
  • [19] Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 11.
  • [20] Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 12.
  • [21] Court of Paris, judgement dated 20 January 2020, page 12-13.

Updated 7 May 2019

TQ Delta v Zyxel Communications, UK High Court of Justice

English court decisions
18 March 2019 - Case No. HP-2017-000045 - [2019] EWHC 745 (Pat)

A. Facts

The Claimant, TQ Delta LLC, holds patents which have been declared as essential to the practice of certain xDSL standards under the ITU Recommendations (Standard Essential Patents, or SEPs). The ITU Recommendations require from the SEP holder to make its patents accessible to users on Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) terms and conditions.

The Defendants, Zyxel Communications Ltd. and Zyxel Communications A/S, manufacture and sell various types of equipment complying with the DSL standard.

In 2013, the Claimant approached the Defendants, seeking to license its SEPs. Since it failed to reach agreement, the Claimant issued infringement proceedings against the Defendants in the United States. Subsequently, the Claimant brought an infringement action against the Defendants before the UK High Court of Justice (Court) based on two SEPs it holds, asking inter alia for injunctive relief. These proceedings involved, on the one hand, technical issues concerning the validity, essentiality and infringement of the patents in suit (technical trial) and, on the other hand, the licensing of these patents on RAND terms (RAND trial).

The Defendants did not make any payments to the Claimant [456] . During the course of the proceedings, the Defendants also refused to confirm that they would take a (global or UK) licence on whatever terms the Court determined to be RAND [457] .

The Court proceeded in both the technical and RAND trial in parallel [458] . On 11 March 2019, the Court delivered its judgement in the technical trial: it found that one of the patents in suit was valid, essential and infringed, whereas the other patent in suit was invalid but would have been essential and infringed had it been valid [459] . The patent that was found valid, essential and infringed expires on 25 June 2019 [460] . The RAND trial is listed for September 2019.

On 18 March 2019, the Court considered the form of order arising from the technical trial [461] . The Court granted an immediate injunction against the Defendants. It refused to stay the injunction or order a carve-out of the injunction allowing the Defendants to process certain existing clients’ orders referring to infringing products. Finally, the Court also refused to grant the Defendants permission to appeal in this case [462] .


B. Court’s reasoning

When considering whether an injunction should be granted in the present case, the Court placed particular emphasis on the Defendants’ conduct. The Court held that there were no grounds to deny an injunction, since the Defendants engaged in ‘hold-out’: they have been infringing one of the two patents in suit for many years without paying any royalties to the Claimant and have also refused to submit to the outcome of an appropriate RAND determination by the Court [463] .

In the Court’s eyes, denying an injunction in these circumstances would be ‘unjust’ [464] , because it ‘would enable ZyXEL [the Defendants] to benefit from their strategy of hold-out’, since they ‘would avoid an injunction, and if the terms of a [F]RAND licence are not as they wish, could refuse to enter into a licence on the terms deemed appropriate by the Court’ [464] . Moreover, depriving the Claimant of injunctive relief would, ‘in effect, amount to a compulsory licence by the court’ which according to the Court would be ‘wrong in principle’ [465] . Against this background, the Court rejected the Defendants’ submission that the grant of an injunction would be disproportionate due to the fact that the patent in suit would expire a few months after the Court’s decision.

Besides that, the Court found that there were no grounds either for staying the injunction for one month, as the Defendants requested, or for granting a carve-out of the injunction to allow the Defendants to fulfil certain existing clients’ orders [466] . The Defendants had not produced sufficient evidence allowing an assessment of any disadvantages potentially arising from the immediate enforcement of the injunction [467] .

Furthermore, the Court refused to grant the Defendants permission to appeal from the grant of an injunction. The Court considered that it would be ‘wrong’ to grant permission, since the Court of Appeal had already set forth the correct general principles in its recent decision in the matter Unwired Planet v Huawei [468] . What is more, in the Court’s view, an appeal would not have any prospects of success; the decision to grant an injunction is an exercise of discretion, from which it is, in general, difficult to appeal. In addition, the Court’s decision was well founded, since refusing an injunction ‘would amount to a compulsory licence of the patentee's exclusive rights and deprive it of meaningful protection in circumstances where the Defendants have elected not to enforce the [F]RAND undertaking’ [469] .

  • [456] TQ Delta v Zyxel Communications, UK High Court of Justice, judgment dated 18 March 2019, para. 6.
  • [457] Ibid, para. 10.
  • [458] See TQ Delta v Zyxel Communications, UK High Court of Justice, judgment dated 21 November 2017, [2017] EWHC 3305 (Pat). Summary available at www.4ipcouncil.com.
  • [459] See TQ Delta v Zyxel Communications, UK High Court of Justice, judgment dated 11 March 2019, [2019] EWHC 562 (ChD).
  • [460] TQ Delta v Zyxel Communications, UK High Court of Justice, judgment dated 18 March 2019, para. 2.
  • [461] During the course of the RAND trial, the Court had rendered interim rulings concerning particularly the treatment of potentially confidential information in the proceedings; see TQ Delta v Zyxel Communications, UK High Court of Justice, judgment dated 13 June 2018, [2018] EWHC 1515 (Ch); judgement dated 28 September 2018, [2018] EWHC 2577 (Pat) and judgment dated 11 October 2018, [2018] EWHC 2677 (Pat). Summaries of the above judgments are available at www.4ipcouncil.com.
  • [462] TQ Delta v Zyxel Communications, UK High Court of Justice, judgment dated 18 March 2019, para. 19.
  • [463] Ibid, para. 12.
  • [464] Ibid, para. 13.
  • [465] Ibid, para. 14.
  • [466] Ibid, para. 15.
  • [467] Ibid, paras. 16 et seqq.
  • [468] Unwired Planet v Huawei, UK Court of Appeal, judgement dated 23 October 2018, Case No. A3/2017/1784, [2018] EWCA Civ 2244, paras. 53 and 54. Summary available at www.4ipcouncil.com.
  • [469] TQ Delta v Zyxel Communications, UK High Court of Justice, judgment dated 18 March 2019, para. 22.

Updated 4 June 2020

Sisvel v Xiaomi, Court of Appeal of The Hague

Dutch court decisions
17 March 2020 - Case No. C/09/573969/ KG ZA 19-462

A. Facts

Sisvel International S.A. (Sisvel) is the parent company of the Sisvel group [1] . In 2012, Sisvel acquired EP 1 129 536 B1 (EP 536) [2] . EP 536 relates to the EGPRS technology, which forms part of a GSM telecommunications standard that implements EDGE [3] .

Xiaomi is a manufacturer of mobile phones with headquarters in China [4] .

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) [5] .

On 15 October 2013, Sisvel notified Xiaomi about its Wireless Patent Portfolio [3] . On 16 July 2014, Sisvel sent a letter to Xiaomi, inviting Xiaomi to contact Sisvel regarding to the conclusion of a licence [3] . Further e-mails were sent to Xiaomi on 3 December 2014, 4 December 2014 and 5 March 2015 [3] .

In an article dated 29 March 2019 published on nu.nl [6] and ad.nl [6] , Xiaomi announced that it would enter the Dutch market with online shops and physical stores [7] .

On 23 April 2019, Sisvel initiated legal proceedings against Xiaomi before the English High Court of Justice in London (English proceedings) [8] . 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 [9] , are FRAND or alternatively, to determine FRAND licensing terms and conditions and find three patents (including EP 536) to be valid and infringed [8] .

On 30 August 2019, Xiaomi filed two legal actions against Sisvel in Beijing [10] . 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 [3] .

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 [11] . 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 [12] .

Sisvel appealed the first instance decision on 29 August 2019 [13] . During the course of the appeal proceedings, on 22 January 2020, Xiaomi deposited funds [14] on an escrow account held by Intertrust [15] . With the present judgment, the Court of Appeal of The Hague (Court) rejected Sisvel’s appeal and sentenced Sisvel to higher process costs [16] .

B. Court’s reasoning

The Court focused on the balance of interests between the parties.

Injunction

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 [17] . 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 [18] . Therefore, only financial damages could incur which the Court considers to be relatively simply compensated at a later point in time [19] . Additionally, Xiaomi had provided security [19] . The security addresses the problem raised by Sisvel, i.e. Xiaomi becoming insolvent and unable to pay damages for patent infringement [3] .

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 [20] . The consequences would thus be severe and could hardly be undone, even if Xiaomi could resume sales again after the expiration of EP 536 [3] . 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 [21] . By accepting a licence Xiaomi would be irrevocably bound to comply with it, including with its rate [22] . The stop of sales in the Netherlands would create loss of profits for Xiaomi and worsen its relationships with its customers [3] . 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 [3] .

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 [23] . 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 [3] . 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 [3] . 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 [23] .

The Court also rejected Sisvel’s claim that Xiaomi was an unwilling licensee [24] . 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 [3] .

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 [25] .

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 [26] . 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 [3] . 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 [3] .

Sisvel’s claim that the lack of an injunction would create an unfair playing field between market participants was also rejected by the Court [27] . 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 [3] . 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 [28] . 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 [3] .

Security

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 [29] . Indeed, the Court underlined that Sisvel can unilaterally reclaim payment, especially if a FRAND rate is determined in the English proceedings [3] . 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 [3] . The Court noted it did not seem Sisvel made use of this possibility to adapt the amount [3] .

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 [30] . 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 [3] . The Court underlined that in the Huawei v. ZTE decision of the CJEU [31] , the security had to be “appropriate”, which depends on the context of the FRAND defence [3] .

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 [32] . 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 [3] . 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 [3] . Sisvel did also not explain why profits data should be disclosed in advance of the main proceedings [3] .

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 [33] . 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 [3] . The acceptance of such arbitration proposal without conditions would have drastic consequences on Xiaomi’s position [3] .

  • [1] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 2, par.2.2.
  • [2] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 2, par.2.4.
  • [3] Ibidem
  • [4] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 2, par.2.8.
  • [5] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 2, par.2.5.
  • [6] Dutch newspaper.
  • [7] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 4, par.2.11.
  • [8] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 4, par.2.12.
  • [9] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, pages 3 and 4, par.2.7 and 2.12.
  • [10] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 4, par.2.13.
  • [11] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 4, par.2.14.
  • [12] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, pages 4 and 5, par.3.3.
  • [13] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 2, par.1.
  • [14] Amount has been redacted.
  • [15] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 5, par.3.5.
  • [16] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, pages 10 and 11, par. 4.24 and following.
  • [17] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 5, par.4.3.
  • [18] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, pages 5 and 6, par.4.3.
  • [19] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 6, par.4.3.
  • [20] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 6, par.4.7.
  • [21] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, pages 6 and 7, par.4.8.
  • [22] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 7, par.4.9.
  • [23] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 7, par.4.11.
  • [24] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 7, par.2.12.
  • [25] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 8, par.4.14.
  • [26] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 8, par.4.15.
  • [27] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 8, par.4.16.
  • [28] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, pages 8 and 9, par.4.17.
  • [29] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 6, par. 4.5.
  • [30] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 6, par. 4.6.
  • [31] Court of Justice of the European Union, Huawei Technologies Co.Ltd. v. ZTE Corp. and ZTE Deutschland GmbH, 16 July 2015.
  • [32] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 9, par. 4.2.1.
  • [33] Court of Appeal of The Hague, judgement dated 17 March 2020, page 9, par.4.18.