WilmerHale
The beginning of 2025 saw two overarching trends in FRAND litigation:
- Amazon and Nokia, as well as Lenovo and Ericsson, settled their global litigation campaigns.
01 Eric Amazon If Nokia
01 In- Of the jurisdictions in which the parties are litigating, the UK must be the only forum willing to set a full global FRAND license and the proceedings are progressing.
- The prospective licensee must have given an undertaking to enter the UK FRAND license.
- Foreign injunctions must have been sought or obtained by the SEP owner notwithstanding that the prospective licensee committed to a FRAND determination in the UK, evidencing a breach of the FRAND obligation.
- The SEP holder’s conduct, including in seeking foreign injunctions, is designed to extract better terms than what the UK court would order.
- The declaration could make the SEP holder reconsider its position and grant an interim license.
- The Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China issued its first ever anti anti-suit injunction in favor of Huawei, despite recognizing that SEP holders are generally limited in their ability to obtain injunctive relief. It The The Xiaomi The
- OMT filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that Xiaomi failed to establish that the use of the documents was for proceedings before a foreign tribunal and that the court erred in weighing up the Intel factor (established in Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, 542 U.S. 241 (2004), when determining whether to exercise court discretion) in favor of Xiaomi.
- On March 5, 2025, the EDTX court found Xiaomi had satisfied its burden showing that the requested documents “will assist the German Court in determining whether respondents’ licensing demands are fair and reasonable in light of the commercial value of respondents’ portfolio,” and are “relevant to determining whether the licensing terms offered by respondents were fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory.”
- Further, regarding the Intel factors, the court held that the discovery sought by Xiaomi was likely unobtainable in the German proceeding and there was no requirement that the applicant “seek discovery in the foreign jurisdiction before seeking the assistance of a district court.” The court also found that there was no evidence in the record suggesting that Xiaomi was attempting to evade restrictions on discovery in Germany and that the document request was sufficiently narrow so as not to be burdensome as it directly related to the German claim.
- The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) advocates for remedial orders in Nokia’s ITC case against Amazon.
- On March 13, 2025, the OUII, which participates as a third party in investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”), submitted a brief to the ITC advocating that Nokia was entitled to an exclusion order against Amazon on Nokia’s video coding SEPs.
- The SEP holder’s conduct, including in seeking foreign injunctions, is designed to extract better terms than what the UK court would order.
Amazon argued that a RAND obligation precluded the entry of an exclusion order under the public interest factors and that no remedy should issue or in the alternative, the remedy should be tailored (with an exception for warranty-based maintenance and service of products already purchased by consumers) or delayed. The The
Please see below for further details on the Nokia and Amazon dispute.Europe:
EU initiates WTO proceedings against China regarding SEP royalties for EU high-tech sector. 01 In According The This request for consultations is the first step in the WTO dispute settlement procedure, with a litigation phase possible if these consultations do not lead to a satisfactory solution.
This matter is related to a different dispute relating to Chinese anti-suit injunctions that has also been challenged by the EU at the WTO. According 01 A This 01 01 The In The The letter expressed support for the Regulation as it would lead to greater transparency, improve innovation in the technology sector, strengthen the competitiveness of the European economy, and protect SMEs, which face setbacks in the current licensing landscape.
Court of Justice of the EU issues landmark ruling on jurisdiction in cross-border patent disputes. The According Such The Swedish court’s invalidity determination is limited to the case at hand and does not affect the validity of the patent in Turkey or other countries. However, the determination of invalidity by the Swedish court is limited to the case at issue and does not lead to the nullity, in whole or in part, of the patent in Turkey or in other countries.
This judgment facilitates cross-border patent litigation, particularly by allowing patent holders to bring an infringement action in a single EU Member State in relation to different national parts of a European patent, without an invalidity defense for a patent registered in another country resulting in a lack of jurisdiction.Nokia secures German injunction against Amazon Prime Video
. Nokia secures German injunction against Amazon Prime Video
. This is the first ban on sales that Nokia has obtained against Amazon’s streaming services. Nokia had obtained a German injunction from the Munich Regional Court against Amazon’s Fire TV Stick devices in September 2024. The Dusseldorf Regional Court granted an injunction on the basis of European Patent 2 271 048, whose infringement was found by Amazon Prime Video. The court found that another Nokia Patent, EP 2130 150, was not infringed. Nokia would have had to deposit EUR 646.75m as a security deposit in order to enforce the injunction while Amazon appealed. This case was one of several video-related SEPs and non-essential cases that Nokia filed in late 2023 in Germany, the US and UK, Brazil and Nokia and Amazon announced on March 31, 2025 that they had settled this case. The Higher Regional Court of Munich delivered its decision on March 20, 2025 in HMD’s appeal of a decision of the Munich Regional Court. The Higher Regional Court dismissed HMD’s appeal, and confirmed the lower court’s decision, finding HMD had infringed on the EVS speech The court deviated, noting “
strict compliance with
should not be an aim in itself”. The Higher Regional Court stated that the defendant must provide a security deposit reflecting the last global license offered by the patent holder, rather than the counteroffer made by the The appeal court has given HMD permission to appeal the FRAND defense issue to the Federal Court of Justice, because the highest court has not yet decided how that defense interacts with the provision of sufficient security.Unified Patent Court (UPC)
UPC court fees reimbursed following Dolby’s SEP claim withdrawal
. The UPC has granted Dolby’s request to withdraw a patent infringement case against several Asus companies. After a settlement, the UPC dismissed Asus’ counterclaim for invalidating Dolby’s Patent. The UPC court ordered that the parties be reimbursed 60% of the court fees they had each paid.
Principles advocated by the European Commission in its HMD amicus brief
rejected by UPC. The UPC Munich local division issued its second FRAND ruling on December 18, 2024. It enjoined Netgear to not infringe Huawei The UK court dismissed Huawei’s jurisdiction claim in MediaTek’s fight. The Judge found that (1) there were multiple issues to be resolved (such as who would be a net payor and what industry practice was in relation to which level in the The UK Court of Appeal has rejected Tesla’s jurisdiction appeal. Tesla sued InterDigital, as one of the participants of the pool, seeking the same FRAND statement as for the platform and challenging the validity some of InterDigital’s Both defendants contested jurisdiction. The first instance judge ruled on July 15, 2024 that the UK court did not have jurisdiction to set a FRAND global rate for Avanci’s 5 This decision was summarized in our July 2024 newsletter.On March 6, 2025, the Court of Appeal ruled on Tesla’s appeal of the first instance decision. Phillips LJ ruled that the English Court did not have jurisdiction to determine FRAND terms for a license of the SEPs running on the Avanci Avanci or the owners of SEPs had no obligation to grant a collective licence to Tesla as claimed. Whipple LJ was in agreement.
In a dissenting judgement, Lord Justice Arnold LJ argued that the first-instance Arnold LJ argued that it is a commercial necessity for Tesla to obtain a licence from the Avanci 5G Pool, since it would be impossible to negotiate Arnold LJ considered that a FRAND statement for a pool license would serve a useful function as it could or would likely force Avanci’s position The UK Court of Appeal grants Lenovo an interim license against Ericsson.
On February 28, 2025 the UK Court of Appeal granted the declaration that Lenovo is The UK Court of Appeal granted a declaration on February 28, 2025 that Lenovo was entitled to be offered a global interim license and set the terms of that license. Lenovo is both an SEP holder as well as a licensee. However, the court only treated Lenovo in this case as a licensed. The key to the decision was the fact that Lenovo: (1) had committed to accepting the UK court’s FRAND decision; and (2) offered to accept U.S. The court also determined that only the UK court could set a global FRAND rate for cross-licenses. In the US Ericsson only sought a declaration that it was in compliance with FRAND, not a global FRAND rate. The court saw Ericsson’s actions as favoring injunctive action, and not jurisdictional preference. That was described as “hold up.”Ericsson, however, alleged Lenovo had been “holding out” for 16 years. The Court of Appeal ruled that this argument was no longer valid after Lenovo agreed to accept a UK-FRAND license. In InterDigital v Lenovo the limitation periods did not apply to SEPs, and Ericsson still received backdated FRAND payment with interest. This meant that any delay by Lenovo had been effectively cured. Furthermore, Ericsson’s ongoing pursuit of exclusionary relief before the U.S. ITC was described by the court as a means to coerce Lenovo into accepting more favorable terms and found to violate Ericsson’s good faith obligation from its ETSI FRAND commitment.
Arnold LJ declared that the interim license would require Lenovo paying a nine-figure interim license fee, calculated as a midpoint between both parties’ offers. The rate would be adjusted after the final determination. Ericsson decided not to offer an interim license, and instead requested permission to appeal at the UK Supreme Court. Lenovo and Ericsson finally reached a partial agreement on April 3, 2025. This ended all proceedings in the world. The unresolved FRAND terms will be dealt with through binding arbitration.
UK Court of Appeal green lights Amazon’s interim license argument against Nokia.
On 28 January 2025, the UK Court of Appeal gave Amazon permission to pursue a interim license declaration despite Nokia’s refusal to accept the jurisdiction of the UK court. Citing an earlier Panasonic v Xiaomi case, the court reiterated the fact that the primary remedy for SEP disputes was financial and not injunctive. Nokia sought injunctive remedies in the US, Germany, Brazil, and the UPC as part of its global litigation against Amazon. Nokia argued that, unlike Panasonic and Samsung, Nokia did not initiate proceedings in the UK nor had it sought to enforce SEPs there. The court found that these differences did not materially change the legal principles established by Panasonic v Xiaomi. Moreover, Amazon’s argument under Swiss law, seeking specific performance of Nokia’s (F)RAND undertaking (to compel entry into an interim license), was found to be arguable and legally significant.Nokia’s reliance on a German court decision declaring its offer (F)RAND and Amazon an unwilling licensee was also dismissed as inadequate proof of good faith. Arnold LJ stated that the German court ruling could not establish Nokia’s compliance with (F/RAND duties in UK, as German courts don’t determine (F/RAND terms. He criticized Nokia for opposing UK court jurisdiction and pursuing injunctions in other countries – a contradiction, in his opinion, that undermined any claim to good faith. Nokia’s conduct could be questioned, given that Amazon made a substantial (and bank-guaranteed) offer. The case was due to proceed to a trial on the interim license declaration and specific performance arguments in May 2025, but a global settlement was reached on March 31, 2025, resolving all pending litigation.India:
Delhi High Court grants FRAND damages to Philips over expired DVD-related SEP.
On February 20, 2025, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Philips in a set of three consolidated patent infringement suits against Pearl Industry, Siddhart Opticals, and Powercube Infotech. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Philips on February 20, 2025, when it ruled against Pearl Industry, Siddhart Opticals and Powercube Infotech for a set of three consolidated patent infringement suits. 218255). The court found that Philips’ SEP, which expired in 2015 was valid, essential and infringed upon during its term. The defendants were found unwilling licensees for refusing to accept a FRAND licence. Philips was awarded damages on the basis of lost royalties, aggravated damage for the defendants misconduct, interest and costs. The court used Philips’ standard rate of $0.03 for DVDs, and because the defendants failed to produce accurate records, damages calculated by Philips using third-party data. The awards were as follows: $750,000 to Pearl Industry, $195,000 to Siddhart Opticals and $1,497.900 to Powercube Infotech. The court was very critical of the defendants for their non-cooperative behavior, including their deliberate withholding DVD sales data. This, the court found, hampered damages assessment and required reliance on outside sources. The court also found that defendants were fully aware of Philips’ licensing structure and actively avoided their obligations. The court, in light of this behavior imposed aggravated damage and set an annual interest rate of 12 percent from the date the lawsuit was filed until full payment. Additionally, Philips was awarded its litigation costs, with the court condemning the defendants for raising baseless revocation arguments and adopting an obstructive stance designed to delay and deny Philips relief.[s]China:[the Huawei v ZTE]Chinese Supreme Court grants first anti anti-suit injunction in a SEP case.
On 24 December 2024, the Supreme People’s Court of China granted its first anti-antisuit injunction in the global WiFi 6 SEP dispute involving Huawei and Netgear. The AASI prohibited Netgear from initiating, or continuing, any foreign legal or administration actions, including in court or customs authorities that would prevent Huawei pursuing infringement procedures or enforcing AASI. Netgear also had to withdraw any foreign applications it had already filed. The court acknowledged that SEP holders generally have limited ability to obtain injunctive remedies due to their FRAND obligations. However, the balance of the behavior weighed in Huawei’s favor as the lower courts had found Netgear to not be a willing licencee and Huawei to be a ready SEP licensor. The court ruled that Netgear’s pursuit in the US of an anti-suit order was a way to pressure Huawei to halt the Chinese proceedings. It also ruled that Huawei would be more harmed by such interference than Netgear. The AASI contained a significant enforcement measure, which threatened Netgear with daily fines of RMB 1,000,000 for non-compliance. Netgear eventually joined the Sisvel Wi-Fi 6 Patent Pool (of which Huawei was a member), resulting in a global settlement that resolved the litigation.
