Court of Appeal Grants Interim Licence in Landmark Ericsson vs. Lenovo SEP Dispute

The UK Court of Appeal granted an interim licence in the Ericsson-Lenovo SEP dispute, highlighting Ericsson’s breach of good faith under the ETSI IPR Policy. The court ruled that a reasonable licensor would have agreed to a short-term licence while awaiting a final FRAND ruling. It rejected Ericsson’s claim that Lenovo’s request for a declaration was unnecessary and found no jurisdictional conflict.

The dispute stems from a 2011 Ericsson-Motorola agreement, which Lenovo argues covers its handset business. Ericsson pursued legal actions in multiple countries, allegedly pressuring Lenovo into non-FRAND terms. The court deemed Ericsson’s refusal to offer an interim licence as coercive. This decision reinforces the UK as a favorable venue for implementers in SEP disputes. Ericsson may appeal, but the ruling could impact global patent licensing negotiations.

Court of Appeal Grants Interim Licence in Landmark Ericsson vs. Lenovo SEP Dispute

The Court of Appeal has granted an interim licence in the ongoing legal battle between Ericsson and Lenovo, a decision with significant implications for both standard essential patent (SEP) owners and technology implementers. The court ruled that Ericsson breached its good faith obligations under the ETSI IPR Policy by pursuing injunctions in multiple jurisdictions, despite Lenovo’s willingness to accept a licence determined as FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) by the English court.

It also found that a reasonable licensor in Ericsson’s position would have agreed to a short-term licence while awaiting the final ruling. Additionally, the court deemed Lenovo’s request for a declaration meaningful and necessary, rejecting the argument that it would serve no purpose. The ruling clarified that issuing the declaration did not conflict with international legal principles, as the English court had jurisdiction over the FRAND determination. The dispute originates from negotiations over a global cross-licence, further complicated by a 2011 agreement between Ericsson and Motorola, which Lenovo later acquired through Google.

Ericsson contends that this agreement does not extend to Lenovo’s handset business, a matter still under review. Meanwhile, Ericsson had initiated legal actions in multiple countries, including seeking an exclusion order through the ITC in the U.S. and securing injunctions in Brazil and Colombia, which Lenovo argued were pressure tactics to force non-FRAND terms. The Court of Appeal, led by Arnold LJ, concluded that Ericsson’s refusal to offer an interim licence was an attempt to coerce Lenovo into accepting more favorable conditions.

The court also emphasized that a short-term FRAND licence could be determined fairly using a broad-brush approach while awaiting the final decision. This ruling strengthens the UK’s position as a favorable jurisdiction for implementers in SEP disputes, signaling that its courts are willing to curb aggressive patent enforcement strategies. The UK Court of Appeal’s decision to grant an interim licence in the Ericsson-Lenovo SEP dispute carries significant implications for both standard essential patent (SEP) owners and technology implementers. The court found that Ericsson breached its good faith obligations under the ETSI IPR Policy by pursuing injunctions in multiple jurisdictions, despite Lenovo’s willingness to accept a licence determined by the English court as FRAND.

The ruling emphasized that a reasonable licensor in Ericsson’s position would have agreed to a short-term licence while awaiting a final determination. Additionally, the court dismissed concerns about jurisdictional conflicts and reinforced the importance of protecting implementers from aggressive SEP enforcement tactics. The case revolves around a disputed 2011 agreement between Ericsson and Motorola, now owned by Lenovo, which Ericsson argues does not apply to Lenovo’s handset business. While Ericsson may seek to challenge the decision in the Supreme Court, this outcome sets a precedent that could influence global patent licensing practices and future SEP disputes.