Snap wins key ruling on scope of RAND patent pool trial against Dolby

The UK High Court has ordered the first trial in Snap’s licensing dispute with Dolby and Access Advance to follow broadly the structure proposed by Snap, with proceedings scheduled to begin in November 2027. The court may determine the appropriate reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) licensing terms, but the underlying dispute remains unresolved.

Snap Inc. has secured a significant procedural victory in its dispute with Dolby Laboratories and patent pool administrator Access Advance over licensing terms for video compression technology.

In a judgment handed down on October 28, 2026, Mr. Justice Mellor ruled that the first trial should broadly follow Snap’s proposal to determine whether it is entitled to a RAND license and, if so, the appropriate terms for a license to the Video Distribution Patent (VDP) Pool.

The 15-day trial is scheduled to begin on November 1, 2027. The judge directed the parties to agree on a more precise list of issues for determination ahead of a case management conference scheduled for November 12 or 13, 2026.

The decision does not establish a royalty rate or determine whether the VDP Pool’s existing terms comply with RAND obligations. Instead, it determines how the complex licensing dispute should proceed, with the judge concluding that Snap’s proposed approach offered a real and substantial advantage over the alternatives.

Dispute over video compression royalties

Snap, which operates Snapchat, uses High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC/H.265) technology and makes minimal use of the AV1 codec, according to the judgment. The company says it does not use VP9 or Versatile Video Coding (VVC/H.266).

Dolby owns patents relating to video compression and licenses its intellectual property both directly and through patent pools. Access Advance administers the VDP Pool, launched in January 2025, which bundles licenses covering four codecs: HEVC, VP9, VVC, and AV1.

Snap argues that the pool’s bundled pricing structure requires content distributors to pay for codecs they do not use, as well as technologies intended to be available on a royalty-free basis. It contends that the terms offered through the pool are not RAND and that the court should determine the appropriate terms of a license covering the relevant patents.

The company also relies on the history of licensing arrangements for HEVC technology. Snap says patent owners and licensing administrators previously focused on royalties from device manufacturers rather than nonphysical content distributors, including streaming services.

Snap alleges that the introduction of the VDP Pool has changed that position, creating a dispute over whether the licensing terms comply with the relevant RAND commitments.

Dolby disputes Snap’s position, including the scope of its licensing obligations and whether Snap is entitled to the proposed license. Access Advance supported Dolby’s approach to dividing the proceedings.

Competing proposals for the trial

The central issue before the court was how to divide the disputed questions between two trials. Snap proposed that the first trial determine whether it is entitled to a RAND license and, if so, the appropriate licensing terms. Its case includes whether a pool license should be available instead of separate bilateral agreements with individual patent holders.

Dolby proposed that the first trial address preliminary questions, including whether Snap had demonstrated a willingness to take a license and which patents and activities should fall within its scope. The valuation of any resulting license would then be addressed at a second trial.

Dolby argued that assessing royalties before resolving those questions could require experts to calculate numerous possible licensing arrangements, increasing complexity, time, and costs.

The parties also disagree over whether Dolby’s RAND commitment for HEVC extends to encoding claims and whether a license should cover AV1. Dolby maintains that its HEVC commitment does not extend to encoding claims and that it has made no equivalent RAND commitment for AV1.

These questions form part of the wider dispute over whether Snap should receive a customized pool license, separate bilateral licenses or the license currently offered through Access Advance.

Mellor acknowledged that Dolby had raised valid concerns, including potential overlap between contractual licensing questions and Snap’s competition law claims. However, he considered that the defendants had overstated the practical difficulties associated with Snap’s proposed approach.

The judge concluded that the first trial offered a good prospect of resolving the entire dispute by establishing the RAND royalties payable by Snap, potentially avoiding the expense of a second trial.

International litigation adds urgency

The UK proceedings are taking place alongside patent infringement litigation involving Dolby and other VDP Pool licensors in the United States, Brazil and the Unified Patent Court (UPC).

According to the judgment, Snap began the UK proceedings on July 10, 2026, after infringement proceedings had been initiated in other jurisdictions. Snap told the court that it faced the risk of injunctions affecting its operations in multiple markets before the UK court could determine the appropriate RAND terms.

Snap also alleged that the international proceedings formed part of a coordinated campaign intended to pressure it into accepting the VDP Pool license. Dolby disputed that characterization, telling the court that, to its knowledge, the licensors were acting independently. Mellor expressly declined to express a view on the alleged coordination, noting that the issue was not before him for determination at this hearing.

Nevertheless, the judge considered the risk of injunctions when assessing the appropriate timetable. He concluded that delaying a substantive determination until 2028 or 2029 could render the UK proceedings ineffective, as Snap might already have been forced to accept licensing terms under pressure from injunction proceedings elsewhere.

The judge also observed that, in a typical RAND dispute involving an implementer willing to take a license, the central question is the amount payable for that license. He noted that injunctions risk enabling the extraction of terms above RAND levels. The ruling does not eliminate the possibility of injunctions in other jurisdictions, but it brings forward the opportunity for judicial scrutiny of the licensing dispute.

Implications for patent pool licensing

The decision highlights the practical challenges of determining RAND terms where a patent pool bundles technologies that an implementer says it does not use and where patent owners are pursuing infringement claims across multiple jurisdictions.

It also illustrates the importance of case management in disputes involving standard-essential patents (SEPs), where the timing of a licensing determination can have significant commercial consequences.

Mellor considered that Snap’s proposed approach offered a real and substantial advantage, particularly given the prospect that a first trial could establish the appropriate royalties and resolve the wider dispute.

However, the precise issues to be determined remain subject to further agreement between the parties. If Snap fails to establish an essential element of its case, including its entitlement to a pool license, a second trial may still be required to determine the valuation of alternative bilateral licenses.

The court’s October 28 ruling is therefore a procedural victory for Snap, not a substantive determination of RAND compliance. Whether the VDP Pool’s terms are reasonable and nondiscriminatory, what license Snap is entitled to receive, and what royalties it should pay remain unresolved.

← Back to News