One case that attracted an amicus brief will be argued in August at the Federal Circuit. That case is Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., in which the Federal Circuit will review a district court’s order denying an antisuit injunction. This is our argument preview.
In their opening brief, the appellants (Lenovo (United States) Inc., Motorola Mobility LLC, Lenovo (Shanghai) Electronics Technology Co. Ltd., Lenovo Beijing, Ltd., Lenovo Group Limited, and Motorola (Wuhan) Mobility Technologies Communication Co., Ltd.) argue that “[t]he threshold requirements for antisuit relief are present here.” They contend the district court “erred in its analysis of whether this action would be ‘dispositive’ of the foreign actions.” This action is dispositive because, the appellants argue, “adjudication of the FRAND claims in this case would necessarily resolve the propriety of Ericsson seeking injunctions abroad.” The district court, they say, “erroneously believed that the ‘dispositive’ prong is not met if there is any reason the case before it might not ‘result in a global cross-license.’” The appellants maintain the Federal Circuit “should reach steps two and three and reverse.” They argue “the antisuit factors point overwhelmingly in favor of an antisuit injunction, and those factors are not outweighed by comity concerns.”
In their response brief, the appellees (Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Ericsson AB, and Ericsson, Inc.) argue the “district court properly found that Lenovo’s request for an antisuit injunction fails at the threshold because the U.S. action is not dispositive of the foreign actions.” On this point, they argue, “Lenovo has refused to commit to accepting Ericsson’s license offer even if that offer is found to be FRAND,” meaning that “Lenovo will remain unlicensed and the foreign actions will remain unresolved.” They also contend “Lenovo fails to show any factor that could overcome the blow to international comity an antisuit injunction would inflict.” They maintain an antisuit injunction would “prevent[] Brazilian and Colombian courts from enforcing Brazilian and Colombian patent rights,” amounting to “an affront to comity that Lenovo does not come close to justifying.”
In their reply brief, the appellants maintain the “district court’s analysis . . . is legally erroneous,” concluding that the Federal Circuit “should reverse” and “order entry of the requested antisuit injunction.”
The App Association filed an amicus brief in support of the appellant’s motion for an antisuit injunction. The brief argues “Ericsson’s use of injunctions to force Appellant to agree with its SEP licensing terms has interrupted the district court’s ability to determine if the SEP holder has complied with its voluntary but binding FRAND commitment.”
Oral argument will be heard on Wednesday, August 7. We will keep track of this case and report on any developments.