MediaTek v Huawei: High Court refuses stay application despite new undertakings

The High Court has decisively rejected Huawei's second application for a case management stay in its patent dispute with MediaTek, despite the Chinese technology giant offering new undertakings and revised settlement proposals.

Mr Justice Leech, delivering his supplementary judgement on 4 July 2025, found that Huawei had failed to demonstrate the requisite material change of circumstances necessary to warrant reconsidering the court's earlier decision to refuse a stay.

Background and second stay application

Following the court's initial refusal of a case management stay in December 2024, Huawei issued a fresh application notice on 10 April 2025, supported by four new witness statements and comprehensive skeleton arguments. The application centred on three principal arguments: changes in legal precedent, developments in parallel Shenzhen proceedings, and new commercial offers.

Huawei contended that the Court of Appeal's decision in Optis v Apple represented a material change in law. However, Justice Leech rejected this submission, noting that the possibility of English courts giving effect to Chinese court findings had been considered in the original decision. The judge emphasised that Arnold LJ's approach in Optis represented a case-specific "least-worst option" rather than a fundamental legal principle.

Shenzhen proceedings and global rate-setting

The defendants argued that developments in the Shenzhen proceedings would result in global rate determinations. Justice Leech accepted that the Chinese court might receive evidence of global rates but remained unconvinced that this would convert the proceedings into a global rate-setting action. Crucially, any worldwide application would require MediaTek's consent, which had not been forthcoming.

The judge noted that Justice Meade had directly addressed this point at a case management conference, with defendants' counsel accepting without qualification that MediaTek's consent would be required for global application of any Chinese determination.

Commercial offers and undertakings

Huawei presented four alternative commercial offers through witness statements from Jane Mutimear of Bird & Bird. These ranged from undertakings to enter global cross-licences based on Shenzhen determinations to conditional offers requiring MediaTek's agreement to convert the Chinese proceedings into global rate-setting actions.

Justice Leech found these offers insufficient to constitute material change of circumstances, emphasising that Huawei could have made such proposals before the original hearing. The judge criticised the attempt to "negotiate with the Court" and noted that the offers required MediaTek's consent, which the court could not compel.

Two key undertakings examined

Huawei offered two specific undertakings: first, not to rely on MediaTek's ETSI FRAND obligations as a defence to infringement claims; second, not to enforce UK-designated patents against MediaTek until 31 December 2030. Both undertakings were conditional on the court granting a stay.

Justice Leech distinguished the Actavis precedent, noting that unlike the present case, those additional undertakings were offered before judgement delivery. The judge expressed concern that evaluating these undertakings would require a "mini-trial" of their scope and effectiveness, contrary to established principles.

Broader implications

The decision reinforces the High Court's reluctance to grant stays in FRAND disputes, particularly where substantial parallel global litigation is ongoing. Justice Leech noted that Huawei had commenced 23 sets of proceedings against MediaTek worldwide, with Justice Meade having previously found this litigation strategy to be coercive and contrary to FRAND obligations.

The judgement also confirms the court's approach to CPR Part 63.14, aligning with the Court of Appeal's recent decision in Tesla v InterDigital. Justice Leech refused permission to appeal, finding no real prospect of success on any grounds advanced by Huawei.

The refusal of the stay application ensures that the expedited FRAND trial will proceed, providing certainty for both parties and the broader telecommunications industry regarding licensing terms for essential patents.