Interim Licenses in the UK, SEP Decision in India

My plan today is to complete a draft of the final substantive chapter of one of my two pending book projects, Wrongful Patent Assertion:  A Comparative Law and Economics Analysis.  I therefore will have to more to say about the two matters below next week, but I thought I should at least call them to readers' attention today. 

First, as reported earlier today by Olivia Sophie Rafferty on ip fray, this morning the Court of Appeal for England and Wales issued its decision in Lenovo Group Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ), [2025] EWCA Civ 182, held that a willing licensor in the position of Ericsson would enter into an interim license with Lenovo, thus expanding upon Lord Justice Arnold's decision last fall in Panasonic v. Xiaomi.  This decision, also authored by Lord Justice Arnold (Lady Justice Falk and Lord Justice Newey concurring) concludes as follows (para. 157):

For the reasons given above I conclude that: (1) Ericsson are in breach of their obligation of good faith under clause 6.1 of the ETSI IPR Policy by pursuing claims for injunctions and equivalent remedies in foreign courts and tribunals despite Lenovo having undertaken to enter into a licence on the terms determined by the Patents Court to be FRAND (subject to adjustment on any appeal) and having offered to submit to determination of FRAND terms by the EDNC; (2) a willing licensor in the position of Ericsson would enter into an interim licence with Lenovo pending that determination, and FRAND terms for that licence would be those set out in the preceding paragraph; (3) making the declaration sought by Lenovo would serve a useful purpose; and (4) the declaration should not be refused on the grounds of comity. I would therefore allow the appeal.

Second, as reported today by Praharsh Gour on the Spicy IP Blog, the Delhi High Court last week entered judgment in Koninklijke PhilipsElectronics N.V. vs. Rajesh Bansal And Ors., awarding Philips damages for the infringement of a SEP, based on a royalty rate of US$0.03 per disk, plus 12% interest and costs.  I have not taken a careful look at the decision yet, but I believe the damages are for sales within India only, not global sales (see para. 217).

More next week.

Updates:  I overlooked Olivia Rafferty's post from earlier this week on the Philips case on ip fray.  Here's a link. 

Also, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion today in Halo v. Pulse (yes, that Halo and that Pulse; case is 18 years old), affirming the denial of enhanced damages and fees, and remanding for recalculation of interest.  I will have a lot to blog about next week.