In other news, on Monday the Court of Appeal for England and Wales issued its decision in Motorola Mobility LLC v. Ericsson Limited, [2024] EWCA Civ 1100. The decision dismisses Lenovo's appeal from the denial of its request for an interim injunction against Ericsson’s use of a Lenovo SEP in the U.K., which the court stated would not have been “a conventional interim injunction, but an interim injunction to restrain Ericsson from carrying out acts alleged to infringe EP 649 qualified by a proviso that it will not apply if Ericsson either (i) undertake to enter into a cross-licence on terms to be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, and not to seek or enforce any injunctive relief pending that determination, with the terms offered by Lenovo applying in the interim, or (ii) agree to enter into an interim cross-licence on the terms offered by Lenovo, or (iii) agree to some other mutually acceptable interim regime. Lenovo are candid that their preference is for Ericsson to take one of those courses rather than for the interim injunction to bite. Ericsson argue that the relief sought by Lenovo would be tantamount to anti-suit relief by the back door when Lenovo have not actually applied for an anti-suit injunction ("ASI")” (¶ 6). My initial reaction is that the judgment is correct, for the reasons stated in Lord Justice Arnold’s opinion (for the most part, lack of a causal connection between the alleged infringement and the alleged harm), but I hope to have more to say about it soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment