On 30 June 2026, the UK Supreme Court formally commenced hearings in the dispute between Apple and the patent holder Optis concerning 4G/LTE standard-essential patents (SEPs).
The case began in February 2019, when Optis filed lawsuits with the High Court in London and the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging that Apple’s LTE-enabled products—including the iPhone, iPad and Apple Watch—infringed several of its SEPs. The patent portfolio in question was originally developed by companies such as Ericsson, Samsung and Panasonic, and following several rounds of ownership changes, is now managed by a fund under the New York-based investment firm Brevet Capital.
In 2023, Judge Marcus Smith of the High Court in London ruled that Apple should pay Optis a one-off licence fee of approximately US$56.43 million (equivalent to approximately 384 million yuan). However, Optis was dissatisfied with the amount and lodged an appeal, which was granted on the basis of 25 grounds of appeal. On 1 May 2025, the UK Court of Appeal overturned the judgment of the High Court of England and Wales (EWHC), substantially increasing the compensation amount to US$502 million (equivalent to approximately RMB 3.416 billion).
The key legal questions to be addressed by the Supreme Court in this hearing include:
1. What is the correct approach for UK courts to adopt when determining FRAND licence terms for a global portfolio of standard-essential patents;
2. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining the FRAND rate itself rather than remitting the case for a fresh hearing;
3. Whether the approach to handling past-sales royalty payments in a FRAND licence was appropriate.
Apple argued that the Court of Appeal’s valuation method was “arbitrary” and “legally flawed”, and that if UK courts were to determine rates in a manner that was “subjective, unprincipled or capricious”, it would undermine the proper functioning of industries worldwide. Apple also stated that an excessively high patent royalty award would ultimately “undermine innovation, quality and the prices consumers pay for products”.
Optis countered that Apple had, for many years, been using its market influence to suppress reasonable licence rates in an attempt to evade paying fair patent royalties. Optis’s solicitor told the court: “Apple’s response to every single patent is the same: to claim that a licence is not required because the patent is either non-essential or invalid.”
The case has drawn the involvement of several industry giants. Apple has secured the support of Intel and a number of Hollywood film studios; meanwhile, chip manufacturer Qualcomm has backed Optis, arguing that Apple’s stance deviates from widely accepted licensing principles within the industry and could undermine companies’ incentives to develop new technologies.
Furthermore, on 12 February 2026, a jury at the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ruled that Apple had not infringed five LTE-related patents asserted by Optis, including US Patent No. 8,411,557 – a finding that stands in stark contrast to the present case.
IP Finance will continue to monitor further developments.
Background to the Case
In February 2019, Optis brought patent infringement proceedings against Apple before the High Court of Justice in London, UK, and the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas;
In 2023, the High Court of Justice in London ruled that Apple should pay Optis a one-off licence fee of approximately US$56.43 million, but Optis, dissatisfied with the amount, lodged an appeal;
On 1 May 2025, the UK Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s judgment, substantially increasing the compensation amount to US$502 million; Apple subsequently applied to the UK Supreme Court for a review;
On 12 February 2026, a jury at the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas found that Apple had not infringed the five LTE-related patents asserted by Optis; Optis stated it would seek a retrial;
On 30 June 2026, the UK Supreme Court formally opened proceedings in the case, focusing on whether the Court of Appeal had correctly determined the FRAND rate.
