On the way to a global FRAND rate: Nokia drops claims against Warner and Paramount

According to the UPC register, the proceedings concerning EP 4 250 732, over which Nokia had sued Warner Bros. and Paramount in autumn 2025, were withdrawn before Easter (case IDs: UPC_CFI_975/2025 and UPC_CFI_739/2026 and UPC_CFI_1390/2025).

In response to an enquiry by JUVE Patent, Munich Regional Court confirmed that Nokia has also withdrawn the actions pending at the court’s 21st Civil Chamber. Nokia had filed claims over EP 4 099 700 and EP 2 130 150. The former, like EP 732, protects a technique for improved motion prediction in video coding. The latter protects a method for an improved arrangement of media files based on profiles.

Meanwhile, the RAND proceedings continue at the UK High Court. The case concerns Nokia’s portfolio with SEPs concerning H.264 (AVC) and H.265 (HEVC) and other video-related patents. However, as IAM reported, in a hearing in late February Nokia “agreed for UK courts to determine the terms of both interim and final global licences” in the dispute with both Warner and Paramount.

Arbitration not necessary

This makes Nokia the second licensor after Huawei to agree to an interim licence set by the UK court. In early February, the UK High Court awarded an interim licence to Huawei in the dispute with implementer TP-Link over Wifi 6.

Initially, in a case management hearing to expedite the trial of the RAND issues before the UK High Court in January, Nokia had agreed to grant a global licence covering its full portfolio of SEPs and non-SEPs. However, at the time the Finnish patent holder insisted that the price for this licence be set through arbitration, arguing this was the appropriate mechanism for setting a global FRAND rate.

Judge Richard Meade disagreed that arbitration would be the only place where a price could be set for the entire relevant Nokia portfolio of SEPs and non-SEPs. Instead, he pointed out that it could be done in the UK court and he was “fairly sure would be agreed to by the claimants”.

In view of the injunction risk Warner Bros. and Paramount faced in several countries such as Brazil, Germany and the UPC, judge Meade accused the Finnish patent holder of “ramping up the numbers of litigations and the jeopardy they pose to the claimants as a tool to bring about an arbitration which the claimants otherwise would not agree to” (case ID: HP-2025-000053).

“Trust in UK court”

In the end, Nokia agreed to the UK High Court setting a rate and withdrew all litigation outside the UK, including the actions in Germany and at the UPC.

In a statement, the Finnish company said: “Nokia’s aim is to ensure that we receive fair compensation for the use of our technologies and to maintain a level playing field for companies who have already agreed to pay for the use our technologies. We have always said that no court should set a global rate without the consent of both parties. We maintain this position, especially as Nokia has not initiated any legal proceedings against Paramount or Warner Bros in the UK. Nonetheless, we have agreed to meet Paramount and Warner Bros’ demands for the UK court to determine the appropriate royalty for the patent licence they need to Nokia’s technology.”

The statement continues, “Licensing principles are still evolving in the streaming services market, and we have confidence in the UK court endorsing Nokia’s valuation based on the agreements we have in place. We also reiterate our firm belief that legally binding arbitration in a neutral, internationally recognised forum is a more effective mechanism to resolve global patent disputes.”

Well versed in streaming litigation

Most of the teams involved boast extensive experience in litigation over video or audio technology used in streaming. Such disputes have been increasing in recent years. Some have since settled — for example Nokia vs Amazon and Nokia vs Hisense — while others are still ongoing, such as InterDigital vs Amazon, InterDigital vs Disney, and Huawei vs Disney.

In Munich and at the UPC Nokia once more worked with a team from IP litigation firm Arnold Ruess consisting of Cordula Schumacher, Arno Riße, Tim Smentkowski, Jan Wergin, Tuğçe Altun, and Victoria Thüsing. The team also included patent attorneys Christoph Walke and Lars Grannemann from Cohausz & Florack. The two Düsseldorf IP boutiques are regular advisors to Nokia.

In the UK proceedings, Nokia relies on its go-to advisors at Bird & Bird. The company instructed barristers Nicholas Saunders of Brick Court Chambers and Tom Jones of 8 New Square.

A mixed Hogan Lovells team led by partners Steffen Steininger and Benjamin Schröer represented both Paramount and Warner Bros. in the UPC and German proceedings. Partner and patent attorney Andreas Schmid was in charge of the technical questions. The team included counsel Katharina Bickel, Teresa Sedelmaier and associates Leonard Hollander, Christopher Schwarzkopf, Wolfgang Schulz, Maximilian Ferling, Daniel Kaneko, and Fabian Langer as well as patent attorneys Alexander Lebschy and Cedric Rohr.

In the UK, Kirkland & Ellis represents Paramount, while Warner Bros. instructed a team from Taylor Wessing. The barristers pleading in court were Andrew Lykiardopoulos of 8 New Square and Femi Adekoya of Blackstone for Warner Bros., and Ravi Mehta and Kyra Nezami of 11 South Square for Paramount.