1. “Did the district court err in finding that Thales did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of its counterclaim requesting that the district court declare FRAND terms and conditions for Philips’ worldwide SEP portfolio?”
2. “Did the district court err in holding that Philips’ pursuit of exclusionary relief against Thales – a willing licensee – in the ITC was consistent with Philips’ contractual FRAND obligations to ETSI and its duty of good faith to meet these obligations, and consequently that Thales failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of Thales’ claim that Philips breached its FRAND obligations?”
3. “Did the district court abuse its discretion in holding that Thales did not demonstrate irreparable harm through unrebutted factual declarations setting out that Philips’ continued pursuit of an ITC exclusion order against Thales’ products causes Thales to lose goodwill and reputation, customer opportunities, and marketshare?”
“The district court did not clearly err in finding that there was no evidence of likely irreparable harm and thus did not abuse its discretion in holding that Thales was not entitled to a preliminary injunction.”
