Lenovo v IPCom (Paris Court of Appeal, RG 19/21426, 2020)

Dhenne Avocats · 11 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

The Paris Court of Appeal upheld the interim order requiring the US companies of the Lenovo group, under a penalty, to withdraw the anti-suit injunction motion filed in California insofar as it targeted IPCom’s actions for infringement of the French part of its standard essential patent. Such a motion, which deprives the patentee of access to the only court competent to rule on infringement of its title, is a manifestly unlawful disturbance (paras 57 to 60). The court however set aside the general prohibition on filing any new application before a foreign court (paras 61 to 64).

The judgment grounds the anti-anti-suit injunction in French law on Article 835 of the Code of Civil Procedure and on the patentee’s fundamental right to effective judicial protection, without ruling on whether the anti-suit injunction offends French international public policy (para 60).

Facts and procedure

IPCom states that it owns EP 1 841 268, held essential to the UMTS standard by the English and German courts, and that it offered the Lenovo group a FRAND licence in September 2018 (paras 4 and 5). On 14 March 2019 Lenovo’s US companies sued in the Northern District of California for breach of contract and for the setting of a worldwide FRAND licence and, on 18 September 2019, after IPCom had sued for infringement in London, moved for an anti-suit injunction (paras 7 to 9). By order of 8 November 2019 the Paris interim relief judge ordered the motion withdrawn as regards France and prohibited any new application for the same purpose, under a penalty of EUR 200,000 (para 13). Lenovo dropped its motion as regards the French proceedings, the Californian court then terminated the motion pending jurisdictional discovery, and the patent expired on 15 February 2020 (paras 15, 19 and 20).

The applicable law

In interim proceedings, jurisdiction lies with the judge of the place where the measures must be taken or with the court that will hear the merits, determined under Article 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure (para 44). The president of the court may, even where there is a serious dispute, order the measures needed to prevent imminent harm or to end a manifestly unlawful disturbance (Article 835, formerly Article 809) (para 51).

Question

May the French interim relief judge order an implementer to withdraw a foreign anti-suit injunction motion that would prevent the owner of a standard essential patent from suing for infringement in France, and prohibit it from filing new ones?

Decision

Jurisdiction was upheld under Article 46: if the anti-suit injunction were granted, IPCom would be unable to sue in France on the French part of its patent and would suffer harm there; the interim relief judge also belongs to the court seised of the infringement action on the merits (paras 45 to 47).

The Californian motion sought to bar IPCom from any infringement action against the Lenovo group and its customers during the US proceedings, including before the French courts (paras 53 to 56). That bar infringes the patentee’s right to bring its case before the only court competent for infringement, having regard to Articles L. 611-1 and L. 615-1 of the Intellectual Property Code, Article 1 of the First Protocol and Articles 6(1) and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and Article 17 of the Charter (para 57). A stay lasting several years with an uncertain outcome, for a patent expiring on 15 February 2020, amounts to a concrete deprivation of the right to sue, particularly as the Californian court cannot rule on infringement of a French patent (para 58). Withdrawal under a penalty was the only appropriate remedy and did not hinder the US proceedings, whose subject matter is different (para 59).

As the Californian court was no longer seised of any motion, the disturbance had ended; the mere possibility of a new motion is not enough, imminent harm was not shown, and the prohibition was unlimited in time and space (paras 61 to 63).

Key points for practice

• The Paris interim relief judge has jurisdiction over foreign companies whose anti-suit motion would threaten an infringement action in France (paras 45 and 47).
• A foreign anti-suit injunction aimed at infringement actions in France is in itself a manifestly unlawful disturbance (para 60).
• The remedy must remain proportionate: a general, unlimited ban on applying to foreign courts will not be maintained once the disturbance has ended (para 63).
• Practical point: a SEP owner threatened with a foreign anti-suit injunction should act swiftly in interim proceedings, targeting the specific foreign motion and the French part of its patent (paras 59 and 63).

Provisions applied

National law

Code of Civil Procedure, Arts 42, 46, 455, 699, 700, 834 and 835 (formerly Arts 808 and 809); Intellectual Property Code, Arts L. 611-1, L. 613-3 to L. 613-6, L. 615-1, L. 615-3, L. 615-17 and D. 631-2; Code of Judicial Organisation, Art. D. 211-6

Other texts

European Convention on Human Rights, Arts 6(1) and 13, and Article 1 of the First Protocol; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 17 and 47; Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, Arts 7(2) and 24(4), relied on by IPCom (Regulation 1215/2012)

Case law cited

Microsoft Corp. v Motorola, Inc., 696 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2012)

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the text of the decision (Paris Court of Appeal website, full French text), consulted on 11 October 2026. Only the official text is authoritative.