Context: Last summer, Mr Justice Fancourt of the High Court of Justice for England & Wales (EWHC) granted Avanci’s and InterDigital’s jurisdictional challenges to a claim brought against them by Tesla over the Avanci pool rate for a one-stop license to the vast majority of 5G standard-essential patents (SEPs) . InterDigital is one of Avanci’s dozens of licensors. Tesla has an Avanci 4G license, but has not yet taken the 5G license and may not have sold a 5G car yet (or if so, then only recently). The England & Wales Court of Appeal (EWCA) heard Avanci’s appeal three months ago.
背景：去年夏天，英格兰及威尔士高等法院（EWHC）的范科特法官批准了Avanci和InterDigital公司对特斯拉就Avanci专利池费率提出的索赔的管辖权异议。特斯拉的索赔是针对Avanci提供的绝大多数5G标准必要专利（SEP）一站式许可的专利池费率。InterDigital是Avanci几十家许可方之一。特斯拉拥有Avanci的4G许可证，但尚未获取5G许可证，而且可能尚未售出过5G汽车（或者如果售出过，那也是最近才发生的事）。英格兰及威尔士上诉法院（EWCA）在三个月前审理了Avanci的上诉。
What’s new: The judgment has just been handed down . Tesla lost, but Lord Justice Richard Arnold dissented as he would have sided with the car maker and given the English courts jurisdiction over such claims.
最新消息：判决刚刚下达。特斯拉败诉，但大法官理查德·阿诺德持不同意见，因为他本会支持这家汽车制造商，并赋予英国法院对这类索赔案的管辖权。
Direct impact: Tesla can appeal this decision to the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) just like Ericsson is trying to appeal last week’s EWCA judgment (where LJ Arnold persuaded the other panel members) in the Lenovo v. Ericsson interim license matter. Tesla would have to ask the EWCA for permission to appeal to the UKSC, and if denied, they could ask the UKSC to overrule that denial, which is the procedural state of affairs in Lenovo v. Ericsson. For now, Tesla’s attempt to use the English courts against the Avanci rate (which almost everyone else accepts, apart from some Chinese car makers, which is why BYD is being sued now ) has failed at the earliest procedural stage.
直接影响：特斯拉可以就这一判决向英国最高法院（UKSC）提起上诉，就如同爱立信正试图就上周英格兰及威尔士上诉法院在联想与爱立信临时许可案中的判决提起上诉一样（当时大法官阿诺德说服了上诉小组的其他成员）。特斯拉必须先向英格兰及威尔士上诉法院申请上诉至英国最高法院的许可，如果申请被驳回，他们可以请求英国最高法院推翻这一驳回决定，这也是联想与爱立信案中的诉讼程序情况。目前，特斯拉试图借助英国法院来反对Avanci专利池费率（除了一些中国汽车制造商外，几乎其他所有人都接受该费率，这也是比亚迪目前正被起诉的原因），在最早的诉讼程序阶段就已失败。
Wider ramifications: This is a major setback for LJ Arnold’s judicial imperialism in the FRAND rate-setting context. He pursues a vision of the UK being the world’s sole FRAND jurisdiction by forcing SEP holders to accept UK jurisdiction. That attitude is a gross violation of the principle of comity and will sooner or later draw major blowback from other jurisdiction, such as the UPC, which has just ordered four anti-antisuit injunctions in as many months. Today’s decision shows that his extremist agenda has finally been rejected by judges who have far less patent expertise than he does. He may have built majority or even unanimous support for some other decisions only because he had dealt with far more patent cases than the other panel members. This time around, there were two critical thinkers who decided to outvote him.
更广泛的影响：这对大法官阿诺德在公平、合理、无歧视（FRAND）费率设定方面的司法扩张主义来说是一个重大挫折。他追求让英国成为全球唯一具有FRAND管辖权的国家，手段是迫使SEP持有人接受英国的司法管辖。这种态度严重违反了礼让原则，迟早会招致其他司法辖区的强烈反对，比如统一专利法院（UPC），该法院在短短几个月内就下达了四项禁诉令。今天的判决表明，他的极端主义议程最终被那些专利专业知识远不如他的法官们所否决。他可能在其他一些判决中获得了多数甚至一致支持，仅仅是因为他处理的专利案件比其他合议庭成员要多得多。而这一次，有两位善于批判性思考的法官决定以票数压倒他的意见。
The decision starts with LJ Arnold’s lengthy explanations as to why he would side with Tesla. But that part is followed by much shorter passages in which LJ Phillips and LJ Whipple dismiss the appeal.
该判决首先是大法官阿诺德就自己为何会支持特斯拉进行了长篇解释。但在这部分内容之后，是大法官菲利普斯和大法官惠普尔用简短得多的篇幅驳回了上诉。
LJ Phillips notes that “the owners who have joined the [Avanci] Platform have not somehow extended the scope of their undertaking to ETSI or entered any other binding agreement to license their SEPs on a collective basis.” He explains that Tesla is free to seek bilateral FRAND licenses or to accept the Avanci license, but it can’t get the discounts and convenience of the pool license by means of a judicial FRAND determination relating to the entire pool.
大法官菲利普斯指出，“加入[Avanci]平台的专利所有者并未以任何方式扩大他们对欧洲电信标准协会（ETSI）所承担义务的范围，也未签订任何其他具有约束力的协议，以集体方式对其SEP进行许可。” 他解释称，特斯拉可以自由寻求双边的FRAND许可，或者接受Avanci的许可，但它不能通过与整个专利池相关的司法FRAND裁定来获得专利池许可所带来的折扣和便利。
After the two other panel members, LJ Whipple has the last word, and she agrees with LJ Phillips, noting in particular that she “cannot identify any basis in Tesla’s pleaded case for suggesting that the SEP owners’FRAND obligations are to be transposed to, or read into, a licence granted by Avanci over its 5G Platform.”
在另外两位合议庭成员发言之后，大法官惠普尔作了最后的陈述，她赞同大法官菲利普斯的观点，并特别指出，她“在特斯拉的诉状中找不到任何依据，能表明SEP所有者的FRAND义务应当转移到Avanci授予其5G平台的许可中，或者应当被解读进该许可协议里” 。
LJ Whipple stresses that Avanci is bound by the Master License Management Agreement (MLMA) with the actual patent holders. She does not deem Avanci to have assumed “the burden of the [patentees’] ETSI obligations.”
大法官惠普尔强调，Avanci公司受其与实际专利持有人签订的《主许可管理协议》（MLMA）的约束。她认为Avanci公司并未承担“[专利权人]对欧洲电信标准协会（ETSI）所负的义务”。
In para. 250, LJ Whipple explains that Tesla can’t get the best of both worlds, a judicial FRAND determination and a convenient, cost-effective pool deal:“Secondly, it follows that Tesla has a choice: it can take the Avanci 5G Platform licence at the offered rate; or, if it does not want to do that, it can negotiate a licence on FRAND terms with each of the SEP owners bilaterally. But Tesla cannot legitimately claim to be entitled to the benefit of FRAND terms as part of the 5G Platform licence granted by Avanci. This is to claim the “best of both” – which to Tesla is doubtless commercially attractive, but which is quite simply not on offer. These are two commercial alternatives; they cannot be combined.”
在第250段中，惠普尔大法官解释称，特斯拉无法两全其美，既获得司法层面的FRAND费率裁定，又得到便捷且具成本效益的专利池许可交易：“其次，由此可知特斯拉有两种选择：它可以按报价接受Avanci5G平台的许可；或者，如果它不想这么做，它可以与各个SEP所有者分别就FRAND条款进行双边许可谈判。但特斯拉不能合理地声称自己有权将FRAND条款的优惠作为Avanci授予的5G平台许可的一部分。这是想要“两全其美”—— 这无疑对特斯拉在商业上很有吸引力，但这根本是不可能实现的。这是两种不同的商业选择，它们无法同时兼得。”
She notes that Avanci already has a bilateral license from one of Avanci’s licensors. In the end, the two-judge majority does not see how there would be a useful purpose in what Tesla is seeking.
她指出，Avanci已经从其一家许可方那里获得了双边许可。最终，两位持多数意见的法官认为，特斯拉所追求的目标并无实际意义。
1.临时许可
Today’s majority decision against LJ Arnold may be an inflection point. It could be the beginning of the end of his expansive approach to interim licenses. The UKSC may see that something has gone awry one level below and needs to be fixed, ultimately in the interest of the UK judiciary and the country as a whole.
今天多数法官作出的反对阿诺德大法官的裁决可能是一个转折点。这或许是他对临时许可采取的扩张性做法走向终结的开端。英国最高法院（UKSC）可能会意识到，下一级法院的某些做法已经出现偏差，需要加以纠正，这最终是符合英国司法体系以及整个国家的利益的。
The fact that some EWCA judges are unwilling to support LJ Arnold’s FRAND stance may serve as an encouragement to judges in other jurisdictions to use their powers to dissuade implementers from seeking interim licenses.
一些英格兰及威尔士上诉法院（EWCA）的法官不愿支持大法官阿诺德在FRAND问题上的立场，这一事实可能会鼓励其他司法管辖区的法官运用他们的权力，劝阻实施者不要寻求临时许可。
2.Avanci声明
Avanci’s vice president of marketing & communications, Mark Durrant, provided the following statement upon request:
“Avanci is pleased that the Court of Appeal has affirmed the lower court decision by Mr. Justice Fancourt. Our optional licensing programs for connected vehicles provide a market-driven global level playing field. Our 4G Vehicle program spans more than 100 auto brands (including Tesla) and almost 60 licensors, while our 5G Vehicle program, launched in 2023, now includes 40 auto brands and over 70 licensors.
Avanci市场营销与传播副总裁马克·达兰特应要求发表了以下声明：“Avanci很高兴上诉法院维持了范科特法官作出的下级法院判决。我们针对互联汽车的可选许可计划提供了一个由市场驱动的全球公平竞争环境。我们的4G汽车项目涵盖了100多个汽车品牌（包括特斯拉）以及近60家许可方，而我们于2023年推出的5G汽车项目，目前已包括40个汽车品牌和70多家许可方。”
“Both the High Court and Court of Appeal have dismissed the case and found that Tesla’s claims did not constitute a serious issue to be tried. The door remains open for Tesla to take an Avanci 5G Vehicle license and benefit from the early licensee reduction if it does so before selling its first 5G capable vehicle.”
“高等法院和上诉法院都驳回了这起案件，并认定特斯拉的诉求并不构成值得审理的重大问题。特斯拉仍有机会获取Avanci的5G汽车许可证，如果它能在销售其首款具备5G功能的汽车之前这么做，还可享受早期被许可方的优惠折扣。”
3.合议庭成员及代理律师
Panel: Lord Justice Arnold, Lord Justice Phillips and Lady Justice Whipple.
Counsel for Tesla: James Segan KC and Ligia Osepciu, instructed by Powell Gilbert (lead counsel: Bethan Hopewell).
Counsel for Avanci: Brian Nicholson KC, instructed by Osborne Clarke (lead counsel: Arty Rajendra) and EIP (lead counsel: Gary Moss).
Counsel for InterDigital: Thomas Raphael KC and Maxwell Keay, instructed by Gowling WLG (lead counsel: Alexandra Brodie).
合议庭成员：大法官阿诺德、大法官菲利普斯和女大法官惠普尔。
特斯拉的代理律师：王室法律顾问詹姆斯·西根和利吉娅·奥塞普丘，由鲍威尔·吉尔伯特律师事务所（首席律师：贝珊·霍普韦尔）指派。
Avanci的代理律师：王室法律顾问布莱恩·尼科尔森，由欧仕本律师事务所（首席律师：阿蒂·拉金德拉）和EIP（首席律师：加里·莫斯）指派。
InterDigital的代理律师：王室法律顾问托马斯·拉斐尔和麦克斯韦·基伊，由高林睿阁律师事务所（首席律师：亚历山德拉·布罗迪）指派。
4.中国法律现状
Given that there most likely won’t be any FRAND rate-setting decisions by the English courts with respect to patent pools anytime soon, and considering that the only automaker currently being sued by an Avanci licensor over 5G SEPs is China’s BYD, there is a Chinese angle here.
鉴于英国法院很可能在短期内不会就专利池相关的FRAND费率设定作出任何裁决，并且考虑到目前唯一一家因5G SEP问题被Avanci许可方起诉的汽车制造商是中国的比亚迪，这里面存在着与中国相关的因素。
First, if Tesla had prevailed, that could ultimately have resulted in China becoming the world-leading pool rate-setting jurisdiction. Second, in a non-automotive and non-cellular context, an implementer (TCL) sought a pool rate determination in a Chinese court against Access Advance. We analyzed the related decision by the Supreme People’s Court of China in detail and found that many questions had been left unanswered. In any event, that dispute settled shortly thereafter before anything significant had happened in the Chinese FRAND case.
首先，如果特斯拉当时胜诉了，最终可能会导致中国成为在专利池费率设定方面处于世界领先地位的司法管辖区。其次，在非汽车和非蜂窝通信领域的背景下，一家实施方（TCL）向中国法院提起诉讼，要求对Access Advance公司的专利池费率进行裁定。我们详细分析了中国最高人民法院的相关判决，发现其中仍有许多问题未得到解答。无论如何，该纠纷在这起中国FRAND案件尚未有重大进展之前不久就解决了。