Context:
- Last year, the England & Wales Court of Appeal (EWCA) increased the UK FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) royalty determination in Optis v. Apple by a double-digit factor to $700M+ including interest (May 1, 2025 ip fray article). Apple petitioned the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) to take up the case. The UKSC granted the petition. The hearing is presently scheduled for June 29 to July 1, 2026.
- The U.S. part of the dispute went to trial twice even before an appeal After an initial $506M award in 2020, a damages retrial was held in 2012 as per an order by Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The outcome was $300M. Apple appealed. The Federal Circuit vacated the judgment due to flawed jury instructions and a verdict form that combined multiple claims into a single infringement question.
What’s new: Yesterday (February 12, 2026), a jury in the Eastern District of Texas cleared Apple of infringement of all five patents-in-suit. As a result, Optis is not entitled to any payment from Apple under U.S. law.
Direct impact:
- Optis can try to appeal, but jury verdicts are afforded great deference.
Wider ramifications:
- The question of how to reconcile a U.S. damages award with a global FRAND determination in the UK no longer has to be addressed, short of a successful appeal, for which the hurdle is high.
- Optis’s entitlement to a global FRAND royalty (including for past use) in the UK proceedings is still the same: it just had to prevail on one UK patent (or, practically speaking, UK part of a European patent). Whether the U.S. outcome will devalue Optis’s portfolio in the UKSC’s eyes is doubtful. While European judges respect the decisions made by their U.S. counterparts, including by Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) at the United States International Trade Commission (USITC or ITC), they are not impressed by jury verdicts. They know that juries consist of laypersons, and juries don’t explain their reasoning.
An Optis spokesperson provided the following comment:
“Optis was founded to protect innovation contributed by some of the pioneers of cellular technology and ensure fair compensation is paid by those that benefit from it. Apple’s stated strategy is to devalue and delay paying for the underlying patented technology of the innovation it relies on to offer high speed LTE communications. While we respect the jury’s decision, we are incredibly disappointed by this outcome. We believe the verdict does not recognize the essential nature of Optis patents which are used in Apple devices to achieve high-speed cellular connectivity. In our UK litigation against Apple, all of the asserted Optis LTE patents were the subject of a full review by specialist judges and were all found to be valid, essential and infringed by Apple. We look forward to a further review of the jury’s verdict by the U.S. District Court and Federal Circuit, and we remain fully committed to securing fair and reasonable compensation consistent with FRAND principles.”
Here’s the verdict:
Counsel
U.S. counsel for Optis
Irell & Manella’s Jason G Sheasby, Andrew J. Strabone, Crawford Maclain Wells, Elliot Z. Chen, Hong Annita Zhong, Ke Yang, Kelsey Schuetz, Lisa Sharrock Glasser, Lucas Oxenford, Rebecca L. Carson, Taylor A Hatridge; McKool Smith’s Kevin Lee Burgess, Christopher Paul McNett, Clare Churchman, Erik Bruce Fountain, Jennifer Leigh Truelove, Mike McKool, Samuel Franklin Baxter, Steven John Pollinger; Hueston Henningan’s Christine Michelle Woodin; Gray Reed & McGraw’s Eric Sean Tautfest, Jared M Hoggan, Mara Jill Bindler; Duane Morris’s Holly Elin Engelmann; Cooley’s Monica Loren Daegele; Goodwin Procter’s Sarah Jane Fischer and William M Jay; BC Law Group’s Jonathan Randy Yim, and Seth Raymond Hasenour; Alston & Bird’s Theodore Stevenson , III; and Nelson Baumgardner Conroy’s David Thomas DeZern.
U.S. counsel for Apple
WilmerHale’s Joseph J. Mueller, Mark D. Selwyn, Alexander J. Nemtzow, Amy R. Pearlman, Andrew J. Danford, Ben Ernst, Brittany Amadi, Daniel C. Wewers, Heath A. Brooks, James L Quarles, Jennifer J. John, Josefina Garcia, Joseph F. Haag, Kathryn Zalewski, Kevin Joseph O’Brien, Mary (Mindy) V. Sooter, Michael J. Summersgill, Michaela P. Sewall, Ravinder Singh Deol, and Timothy D. Syrett; Walker Stevens Cannom Yang’s Hannah Lynn Cannom and Bethany M. Stevens; and Gillam & Smith’s James Travis Underwood and Melissa Richards Smith.
UK counsel for Optis
Unwired Planet and Optis Wireless have the same parent company: PanOptis. Unwired was and Optis is being represented by Adrian Speck KC, instructed (on both occasions) by EIP and OsborneClarke. In the Optis case, Mr. Speck works together with James Abrahams KC, Josephine Davies KC, Isabel Jamal and Thomas Jones.
UK counsel for Apple
On Apple’s behalf, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP instructed Jon Turner KC, Hugh Mercer KC, Michael Bloch KC, Brian Nicholson KC, Sarah Love and Ligia Osepciu.