Context: The standard-essential patent (SEP) licensing dispute between Huawei and MediaTek is getting more attention now, in no small part due to Huawei having recently filed two Unified Patent Court (UPC) complaints . Previously, MediaTek case against Huawei in the UK, with a throw-in-the-kitchen-sink range of claims from antitrust to FRAND to declaratory judgment to infringement, survived a jurisdictional challenge, as the hurdle at that stage is low .
背景：华为与联发科之间的标准必要专利（SEP）许可纠纷如今正受到越来越多的关注，这在很大程度上是因为华为最近向统一专利法院（UPC）提交了两份诉状。此前，联发科在英国针对华为提起的诉讼，其诉求范围广泛，涵盖了从反垄断到FRAND原则，再到确认之诉以及专利侵权等方面。由于在那个阶段的管辖权挑战门槛较低，该诉讼成功应对了管辖权方面的质疑。
What’s new: Today Mr Justice Richard Meade of the High Court of Justice for England & Wales (EWHC) held a four-hour hearing and granted an application by MediaTek to expedite the FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing) trial. It will be held in February 2026, which is relatively soon but four months later than MediaTek’s preferred October 2025 date. A renewed application by Huawei to stay the UK proceedings will be decided by Mr Justice Thomas Leech in a separate proceeding and could, theoretically, vacate the FRAND trial date. It became known as a result of the hearing that Huawei has already won a couple of Brazilian preliminary injunctions against MediaTek, one of which MediaTek became aware of only during today’s hearing.
最新消息：今天（4月15日），英格兰及威尔士高等法院（EWHC）的理查德·米德法官举行了一场时长四小时的听证会，并批准了联发科提出的加快FRAND许可审判的申请。该审判将于2026年2月举行，时间相对较近，但比联发科原本希望的2025年10月要晚四个月。华为再次提出的暂停英国诉讼程序的申请，将由托马斯·利奇法官在另一单独程序中做出裁决，理论上来说，这一申请有可能会使FRAND审判的日期被取消。从此次听证会上得知，华为已经赢得了针对联发科的几项巴西初步禁令，其中有一项禁令联发科直到今天听证会上才知晓。
Direct impact: Today’s decision only has case management implications. The dispute has miles to go. Given that MediaTek manufacturers in China and itss top 10 customers are all based in China, whatever comes out of the UK proceedings may ultimately fail to move the needle in the parties’ licensing negotiations.
直接影响：今日的裁决仅对案件管理方面产生影响。这场纠纷仍有很长的路要走。鉴于联发科在中国进行生产制造，且其前十大客户均位于中国，无论英国诉讼程序的结果如何，最终可能都无法推动双方在许可谈判上取得实质性进展。
Wider ramifications: MediaTek is complaining that Huawei wants it to take a patent license at the chipset level, but as discussed further below, Mediatek is thereby contradicting its own positions on Qualcomm’s refusal to license chipset makers. While it is not unusual for litigants to take different positions when the shoe is on the other foot, it is an unprecedented level of consistency that a company which, through testimony and in various other ways, supported antitrust action against Qualcomm over not licensing patents at the chipset level is now pursuing (even if the focus appears to be on FRAND claims under contract law) an antitrust claim against a company for actually being prepared to grant precisely that kind of license.
更广泛的影响：联发科辩称，华为希望其在芯片组层面获取专利许可，但正如下面进一步探讨的那样，联发科此举与其自身在高通拒绝向芯片组制造商授予许可这一问题上的立场相互矛盾。虽然诉讼当事人在情况对调时采取不同立场的情况并不罕见，但一家公司通过证词及其他各种方式，支持针对高通不在芯片组层面授予专利许可而采取的反垄断行动，如今却针对一家实际上准备授予这种许可的公司提起反垄断诉讼（即便重点似乎是基于合同法提出的FRAND相关诉求），这种前后不一致的程度达到了前所未有的水平。
Mr Justice Meade asked counsel for both parties critical — but not hostile — questions. When he announced his decision on the record, he referred to the case law of the England & Wales Court of Appeal (EWCA) on interim licenses and, generally, on UK jurisdiction over those sorts of FRAND claims.
米德法官向双方的律师提出了一些关键但并非敌对的问题。当他当庭宣布裁决时，他援引了英格兰及威尔士上诉法院（EWCA）关于临时许可的相关判例法，以及总体上关于英国对这类FRAND诉求的管辖权方面的判例法。
It is fair to say that Mr Justice Meade, a former patent litigator, is far from a judicial activist. The Panasonic v. Xiaomi case that gave rise to the first-ever interim SEP license was pending before him for the most part (though not the interim license part per se), but Panasonic had committed to grant a license on terms to be set by the English courts and walked back, which understandably annoyed Mr Justice Meade.
可以说，曾担任过专利诉讼律师的米德法官绝非一名司法能动主义者。引发了史上首个SEP临时许可的“松下诉小米”案，在很大程度上（尽管并非临时许可本身那部分）是由他来审理的。不过，松下曾承诺按照英国法院设定的条款授予许可，后来却食言了，这理所当然地惹恼了米德法官。
That said, MediaTek v. Huawei threatens to become another example of unfettered extraterritorial overreach by the English courts in a SEP context. Over Huawei’s objection, the court scheduled a FRAND trial without establishing any liability, and MediaTek’s portfolio is neither large nor battle-tested. But above all, Huawei’s counsel explained that they have not been allowed to sell network infrastructure in the country for a number of years and in a few years’ time even the existing installations will have been replaced. When a dispute has its center of gravity so clearly in another country, the UK judiciary should exercise restraint. But the EWHC is bound by the EWCA’s unreasonable decisions in this regard.
话虽如此，“联发科诉华为”一案有可能成为英国法院在SEP领域毫无节制地进行域外管辖权扩张的又一个例证。尽管华为提出了反对意见，法院还是在未确定任何责任归属的情况下安排了FRAND原则审判，而且联发科的专利组合既不算庞大，也未经过实战检验。但最重要的是，华为的律师解释称，多年来他们一直不被允许在英国销售网络基础设施，再过几年，就连现有的设施也会被更换掉。当一场纠纷的重心如此明显地在另一个国家时，英国司法机构本应保持克制。然而，EWHC却受到EWCA在这方面不合理裁决的约束。
Sooner or later the courts in other jurisdictions may start to sanction parties for abusing the UK state of affairs. Then it may all come to an end, just like the Munich I Regional Court developed a remedy to antisuit injunctions in the form of pre-emptive anti-antisuit and anti-anti-anti-antisuit injunctions that the UPC is now also prepared to grant. But as long as the English courts just make “declarations” without forcing parties (under the threat of sanctions) to grant licenses, there is neither a need nor a basis for such defensive measures. For now, the most likely outcome is that whatever the result of the UK FRAND proceedings will be, the actual decision will be made elsewhere.
迟早，其他司法管辖区的法院可能会开始制裁那些滥用英国现有司法状况的当事人。届时，这一切或许就会结束，就如同慕尼黑第一地区法院制定了一种针对禁诉令的应对措施，即先发制人的反禁诉令以及反反反禁诉令，而如今UPC也准备签发这类禁令。但只要英国法院只是作出“声明”，而不（以制裁相威胁）强迫当事人授予许可，那就既没有必要也没有依据采取此类防御性措施。就目前而言，最有可能出现的结果是，无论英国有关FRAND原则诉讼程序的结果如何，实际的决定将在其他地方做出。
联发科自相矛盾
MediaTek makes chipsets that are incorporated into smartphones. Huawei wants MediaTek to license the SEPs it implements. MediaTek, however, argues that what Huawei is doing is discriminatory and prejudicial. That is the very opposite of what MediaTek argued a few years ago when it was one of the companies, alongside Apple and Intel, who wanted antitrust regulators around the globe to force Qualcomm to grant chipset-level SEP licenses.
联发科生产用于智能手机的芯片组。华为希望联发科就其所实施的SEP授予许可。然而，联发科却认为华为的做法具有歧视性且不公正。这与联发科几年前的主张完全相反。当时，联发科与苹果和英特尔等公司一道，希望全球的反垄断监管机构能迫使高通授予芯片组层面的SEP许可。
Hypocrisy is an understatement for first making antitrust arguments over company A’s refusal to do something and later accusing company B of an antitrust violation for wanting to do what company A declined to do.
先就A公司拒绝做某事提出反垄断方面的主张，而后又指责B公司因想要做A公司拒绝做的事而违反反垄断规定，用“虚伪”这个词来形容这种行为都算是轻描淡写了。
The district court judgment (later overruled by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) in Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm is still available on the FTC’s website (PDF). Under oath, Finbarr Moynihan, a MediaTek executive, argued that MediaTek’s customers specifically wanted the assurance that MediaTek had licensed Qualcomm’s patents. He blamed MediaTek’s problems in competing with Qualcomm on the latter’s refusal to grant a chipset-level license. Mr. Moynihan’s testimony is found in different sections of the decision, and the refusal-to-license part is discussed in particular detail on pages 114 and 115:
“美国联邦贸易委员会（FTC）诉高通公司（Qualcomm）”一案的地区法院判决（后来被美国第九巡回上诉法院推翻）仍可在联邦贸易委员会的网站上查阅（PDF格式）。联发科高管芬巴尔·莫伊尼汉（Finbarr Moynihan）在宣誓作证时称，联发科的客户特别希望得到联发科已获得高通专利授权的保证。他将联发科在与高通竞争中遇到的问题归咎于高通拒绝授予芯片组层面的专利许可。莫伊尼汉先生的证词在该判决的不同部分都有体现，关于高通拒绝授予许可的部分，在判决书第114页和第115页有特别详细的论述：
1.2008年拒绝向联发科授予许可
Qualcomm refused its rival MediaTek’s 2008 request for a patent license, and would only enter an agreement that restricted MediaTek’s customer base. Qualcomm’s refusal suppressed MediaTek’s revenues and prevented MediaTek from being able to fund research and development for future generations of modem chips.
高通公司拒绝了其竞争对手联发科在2008年提出的专利许可请求，并且只愿意签订一份限制联发科客户群体的协议。高通的拒绝行为抑制了联发科的营收，使其无法为下一代调制解调器芯片的研发提供资金支持。
Finbarr Moynihan (MediaTek General Manager of Corporate Sales and Business Development) testified that when MediaTek was soliciting customers for its first 3G modem chip, OEMs uniformly told MediaTek that OEMs would not purchase the modem chips until MediaTek had a license from Qualcomm: “[T]he kind of prevailing message from all of the customers I engaged with was that they expected us to have a license agreement with Qualcomm before they would consider purchasing 3G chipsets from MediaTek.” Tr. at 336:13-16. Thus, Moynihan testified that the license requirement “sort of stalled the progress” of MediaTek’s modem chip. Id. at 336:18-20. Moynihan testified that “somebody in the company reached out at some point to seek a license agreement from Qualcomm.” Id. at 336:23-25. However, the negotiations went slowly, Moynihan testified: “We would have liked if they had gone faster. We felt like they were sort of maybe being slow.” Id. at 337:8-10.
芬巴尔·莫伊尼汉（联发科企业销售与业务拓展总经理）作证称，当联发科为其首款3G调制解调器芯片招揽客户时，OEM一致告知联发科，在联发科获得高通公司的许可之前，他们不会购买该调制解调器芯片：“我接触过的所有客户都传达出一种普遍的信息，那就是在考虑从联发科购买3G芯片组之前，他们希望我们与高通达成许可协议。”（审判记录）第336页第13至16行。因此，莫伊尼汉作证说，许可要求“在一定程度上阻碍了”联发科调制解调器芯片的发展进程。同上，第336页第18至20行。莫伊尼汉作证称，“公司里有人在某个时候主动联系高通，寻求达成许可协议。”同上，第336页第23至25行。然而，莫伊尼汉作证表示，谈判进展缓慢：“我们本希望谈判能进展得更快些。我们觉得他们可能有点拖沓。”同上，第337页第8至10行。
Ultimately, Qualcomm refused to enter a license, and would only offer an agreement called the CDMA ASIC Agreement. Id. at 337:11-17; see JX0050-001 (CDMA ASIC Agreement). The CDMA ASIC Agreement restricted MediaTek to selling modem chips only to “Authorized Purchasers,” defined as “only those entities which have been granted a license by Qualcomm under at least Qualcomm’s CDMA Technically Necessary Patents . . . but for only so long as such entities remain so licensed by Qualcomm,” and included lists of Authorized Purchasers. JX0050006, -067. Thus, the CDMA ASIC Agreement gave Qualcomm the power to control to whom MediaTek, Qualcomm’s rival, sold modem chips.
最终，高通拒绝达成许可协议，只愿意提供一份《CDMA专用集成电路协议》。（审判记录）第337页第11至17行；另见JX0050-001（《CDMA专用集成电路协议》）。《CDMA专用集成电路协议》限制联发科只能将调制解调器芯片出售给“授权购买方”，“授权购买方”被定义为“仅指那些至少已获得高通根据其CDMA技术必要专利所授予许可的实体……且仅在这些实体持续持有高通所授予的此类许可的期间内”，并且该协议还列有授权购买方的名单。JX0050006、-067。因此，《CDMA专用集成电路协议》赋予了高通权力，使其能够控制作为其竞争对手的联发科将调制解调器芯片出售给哪些对象。
In addition, the CDMA ASIC Agreement imposed onerous reporting requirements. The agreement required MediaTek to report to Qualcomm “specific quantities” of modem chips that MediaTek sold to each Authorized Purchaser. JX0050-055 to -056. Thus, MediaTek was forced to give its rival Qualcomm sensitive business information about MediaTek’s customers and the quantity of chips MediaTek sold to each customer.
此外，《CDMA专用集成电路协议》还规定了繁琐的报告要求。该协议要求联发科向高通报告联发科出售给每个授权购买方的调制解调器芯片的“具体数量”。JX0050-055至-056页。因此，联发科被迫向其竞争对手高通提供有关联发科客户的敏感商业信息，以及联发科向每个客户出售芯片的数量。
In part due to the delay caused by the need for a license and Qualcomm’s refusal, Finbarr Moynihan (MediaTek General Manager of Customers Sales and Business Development) testified that MediaTek’s modem chip was outdated by the time it entered the market: “By the time we were really pushing it [in] the market, the requirements had moved on from what features the 6268 could deliver.” Tr. at 338:10-12. Moynihan testified that Qualcomm’s refusal to license also hampered MediaTek’s ability to generate the customer base necessary to invest in future generations: “So not being able to generate profit revenue on 3G I think impacted our ability to invest in 4G.” Id. at 338:18-339:3.
部分由于获取许可所需的时间延迟以及高通的拒绝，芬巴尔·莫伊尼汉（联发科客户销售与业务拓展总经理）作证称，联发科的调制解调器芯片进入市场时已经过时：“当我们真正将其推向市场时，市场对功能的要求已经超出了6268芯片所能提供的范围。”（审判记录）第338页第10至12行。莫伊尼汉作证表示，高通拒绝授予许可也阻碍了联发科建立起投资下一代产品所需的客户群体的能力：“所以，我认为无法从3G产品上获得利润收入，影响了我们投资4G产品的能力。”同上，第338页第18行至第339页第3行。
MediaTek was part of the group of companies lobbying the FTC and other competition authorities to bring and pursue cases against Qualcomm. After the May 2019 district court decision, MediaTek also filed an amicus curiae brief that described Qualcomm’s refusal to grant chipset-level SEP licenses as an antitrust violation:
联发科是游说FTC及其他竞争监管机构对高通提起并推进诉讼的企业群体中的一员。在2019年5月地区法院作出判决后，联发科还提交了一份法庭之友意见书，其中将高通拒绝授予芯片组层面的SEP许可的行为描述为违反反垄断法的行为。
On page 17 (page 23 by the numbering of the PDF document), MediaTek outlined its vision for a license deal with Qualcomm:
在第17页（按PDF文档的页码编号为第23页），联发科概述了其与高通达成许可协议的设想：
With a license, MediaTek would no longer need fear the devastating impact of whatever discriminatory or exclusionary means Qualcomm devises to evade injunctive relief as to its device-level licenses. Instead, customers could choose to purchase chips from MediaTek and thereby avoid a licensing relationship with Qualcomm altogether. Moreover, chip-level licensing would ensure that Qualcomm could not continue to tax the sale of competitors’ chips, thereby raising their cost, through supra-FRAND device-based royalties.
获得许可后，联发科将不再需要担心高通为规避其设备层面许可方面的禁令救济而设计的任何歧视性或排他性手段所带来的毁灭性影响。相反，客户可以选择从联发科购买芯片，从而完全避免与高通建立许可关系。此外，芯片层面的许可将确保高通无法继续通过高于FRAND原则的基于设备的专利费，对竞争对手芯片的销售征税，进而提高竞争对手的成本。
Now that Huawei wants MediaTek to take a license, MediaTek says Huawei should collect patent royalties from handset makers: MediaTek’s customers.
如今华为希望联发科获取许可，联发科却表示华为应该从手机制造商，也就是联发科的客户那里收取专利版税。