Motorola Mobility v Ericsson (EWCA, [2024] EWCA Civ 1100, 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 11 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

The Court of Appeal (England and Wales) upheld the refusal of the interim injunction sought by Lenovo against Ericsson on a UK patent declared essential to 5G, subject to a proviso disapplying it if Ericsson accepted an interim cross-licence. Arnold LJ held that any loss caused by the alleged infringement in the UK can be compensated by royalties or damages, and that the losses suffered in Brazil and Colombia as a result of Ericsson’s injunctions are not caused by that infringement (paras 37 and 45). The judgment closes off the use of a national interim injunction as negotiating leverage against foreign proceedings (para 56).

Facts and procedure

Lenovo and Ericsson each hold SEP portfolios subject to the ETSI FRAND undertaking with reciprocity, so that a global cross-licence is required (paras 2, 10 and 11). Ericsson sued in the Eastern District of North Carolina and before the ITC, and then obtained preliminary injunctions in Brazil and Colombia (paras 17 to 19, 24 and 25). Lenovo asked the English court to determine the terms of a global cross-licence and undertook to enter into it; Ericsson undertook to the Patents Court to enter into a licence consistent with the US determination (paras 18, 21 and 23). In a third action, Lenovo sought an interim injunction based on EP 649, which would not apply if Ericsson accepted one of the interim regimes proposed (paras 1 and 6). Bacon J refused it (para 7).

The applicable law

It was common ground that the American Cyanamid v Ethicon principles applied (para 29). Clause 6.1 of the ETSI IPR Policy must be applied so as to avoid both hold up and hold out; FRAND is also a process, and a range of terms may be FRAND (paras 32 to 35). Lenovo also relied on the broad injunctive jurisdiction recognised by the Supreme Court in Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers (para 50).

Question

Can a SEP owner obtain an interim injunction in the UK by relying, as irreparable harm, on losses suffered abroad as a result of injunctions obtained against it by its opponent in other countries?

Decision

Loss caused by the alleged UK infringement can be quantified as royalties, since a licence would retrospectively cover the acts in question or, failing that, equivalent damages would be due (para 37). The pressure that might lead Lenovo to settle does not show that damages would be inadequate (paras 41 to 43). The losses in Brazil and Colombia are not caused by the UK acts, which an English injunction would leave untouched (para 45). The Wolverhampton argument founders on the disconnection between the relief sought and the harm alleged: the injunction is intended to provide leverage in negotiations (para 56). Lenovo did not plead any breach by Ericsson of clause 6.1 and showed no unconscionable conduct (paras 28 and 57). The analogy with a FRAND injunction was rejected (para 60). The appeal was dismissed (para 62).

Key points for practice

• The irreparable harm relied on for an interim injunction must be caused by the infringement which the injunction is meant to restrain (paras 45 and 56).
• Exercising rights in other countries is not in itself unconscionable, absent an established breach of clause 6.1 (para 57).
• The Court acknowledged the force of the complaint about foreign injunctions pending FRAND determination and left open a possible role for the court in regulating that period (para 58).
• Practical point: an implementer wishing to counter foreign injunctions must ground its application in a pleaded breach of the FRAND undertaking, with evidence of French law, or in an anti-suit injunction (paras 28, 57 and 59).

Provisions applied

ETSI IPR Policy

clause 6.1

National law

Senior Courts Act 1981, s 37(1)

Case law cited

American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396; SmithKline Beecham v Apotex [2003] EWCA Civ 137; Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47; Broad Idea v Convoy Collateral [2021] UKPC 24; Anan Kasei v Neo Chemicals [2023] EWCA Civ 11; Airbus Industrie v Patel [1999] 1 AC 119; Unwired Planet v Huawei [2017] EWHC 2988 (Pat) and [2020] UKSC 37; InterDigital v Lenovo [2024] EWCA Civ 743; Nokia v OnePlus [2022] EWCA Civ 947; Optis v Apple [2022] EWCA Civ 1411

Related decisions

• Lenovo v Ericsson, Court of Appeal, 28 February 2025, decided between the same groups on the interim licence application referred to at para 22.
• InterDigital v Lenovo, Court of Appeal, 12 July 2024, cited for the general background to FRAND disputes.
• Unwired Planet v Huawei, UK Supreme Court, 26 August 2020, analysis of clause 6.1 relied on by the Court.
• Nokia v OnePlus, Court of Appeal, 11 July 2022, cited on the absence of any global dispute resolution mechanism.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the text of the decision (National Archives), consulted on 11 October 2026. Only the official text is authoritative.