Motorola Mobility Llc & Anor v Ericsson Ltd & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 1100 (30 September 2024)

Motorola Mobility Llc & Anor v Ericsson Ltd & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 1100 (30 September 2024)

The losses Lenovo relied upon were not caused by Ericsson's alleged infringement of the UK patent but by Ericsson's enforcement of its rights in foreign jurisdictions. Damages or royalties under a cross-licence would be an adequate remedy if infringement is established. The American Cyanamid principles remain applicable and were not fettered. The relief sought was not justified as it did not protect the right at issue and was not supported by unconscionable conduct or breach of FRAND obligations as pleaded.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Civ 1100
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Motorola Mobility LLC; Claimant/appellant: Lenovo (United States) Inc.; Defendant/respondent: Ericsson Limited; Defendant/respondent: Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal of Interim Injunction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Standard Essential Patents (seps), FRAND Licensing, Interim Injunctions, Cross Licensing, Anti Suit Injunctions, Jurisdiction, Adequacy of Damages
Intellectual Property Law Patent Law Civil Procedure Standard Essential Patents (seps) FRAND Licensing Interim Injunctions Cross Licensing Anti Suit Injunctions +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Motorola Mobility LLC

Claimant/appellant

Lenovo (United States) Inc.

Claimant/appellant

Ericsson Limited

Defendant/respondent

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal of Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in refusing an interim injunction to restrain alleged infringement of a standard-essential patent (SEP) pending trial
  2. 2 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the claimant if infringement is established at trial
  3. 3 Whether the American Cyanamid principles fetter the court's discretion in the context of SEPs and FRAND obligations

Ratio Decidendi

The losses Lenovo relied upon were not caused by Ericsson's alleged infringement of the UK patent but by Ericsson's enforcement of its rights in foreign jurisdictions. Damages or royalties under a cross-licence would be an adequate remedy if infringement is established. The American Cyanamid principles remain applicable and were not fettered. The relief sought was not justified as it did not protect the right at issue and was not supported by unconscionable conduct or breach of FRAND obligations as pleaded.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No interim injunction granted
  • No change to the High Court's order