Judge Albright’s Order in BMW v. Onesta

As noted on this blog previously (see here and here), in December Judge Alan Albright (W.D. Tex.) issued a temporary restraining order, later converted into a preliminary injunction, ordering U.S. patent assertion entity Onesta from adjudicating claims against BMW for the infringement of U.S. patents in the Munich Regional Court.  On February 13, the judge issued his written order explaining his reasoning.  The order is available on Westlaw (2026 WL 474871) and from other sources, such as Pacer.

By way of background, one year ago the Court of Justice for the European Union issued its decision in BSH v. Electrolux.  In that case, the owner of a European Patent filed an action in Sweden, against a defendant domiciled in Sweden, for the infringement not only of the Swedish part of the patent in suit, but also for the infringement of the corresponding parts validated in nine other European Patent Convention (EPC) member states--including at least one (Türkiye) which is not an EU member.  One of the questions presented was whether the Brussels Regulation Recast conferred exclusive jurisdiction over a Turkish court in respect of the part validated in Turkey.  The court held that it did not, but rather that the Swedish court may adjudicate both the infringement and validity of the Turkish part, although the validity ruling would apply only inter partes (in other words, the effect of the ruling would not be to nullify the Turkish part as against the world).  In reaching this conclusion, the court stated that

. . . the court of the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled which is seised, as in the case in the main proceedings, on the basis of Article 4(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, of an infringement action in the context of which the issue of the validity of a patent granted or validated in a third State is raised as a defence, does have jurisdiction to rule on that issue if none of the restrictions referred to in paragraphs 63 to 65 of the present judgment is applicable, given that the decision of that court sought in that regard is not such as to affect the existence or content of that patent in that third State, or to cause its national register to be amended.

 

. . . As the Advocate General observed in point 62 of his Opinion of 22 February 2024 and as the parties to the main proceedings and the European Commission stated at the hearing on 14 May 2024 before the Court, that decision has only inter partes effects, that is to say, a scope limited to the parties to the proceedings. Thus, where the issue of the validity of a patent granted in a third State is raised as a defence in an action alleging infringement of that patent before a court of a Member State, that defence seeks only to have that action dismissed, and does not seek to obtain a decision that will cause that patent to be annulled entirely or in part. In particular, under no circumstances can that decision include a direction to the administrative authority responsible for maintaining the national register of the third State concerned (paras. 74-75).

The court’s reasoning does not, at least explicitly, appear to hinge on the “third State” being a party to the EPC, and thus could be cited in support of the Munich court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate claims for the infringement of a U.S. patent in an action filed against a company (like BMW) domiciled in Germany.  Then again, as Judge Albright notes in his order, the BSH “decision never expressly grants long-arm authority to divest U.S. courts of jurisdiction to enforce U.S. patents.”  Fair enough.

In any event, in granting the ASI, Judge Albright goes through the Fifth Circuit’s test for granting an ASI, which is largely similar to what other U.S. circuits require.  First, it is undisputed that the parties to the U.S. and Munich actions are the same, and the U.S. action (BMW’s action for a declaratory judgment of patent misuse, noninfringement, and invalidity) would dispose of the relevant issues in Munich.  Second, the Munich action would “frustrate a policy of the forum issuing the injunction” or, alternatively, would “cause prejudice or offend other equitable principles.”  In this regard, he writes that “[a]llowing the Munich proceedings to continue threatens the United States' policy interest in adjudicating its own patents and protecting litigants' jury rights in infringement cases. Similarly, proceedings in the Munich court necessarily deprive BMW of critical defendant rights available only here—e.g., fact discovery; invalidity consideration with erga omnes effect; and juries as a bulwark against the improper grant or assertion of U.S. patents. . . .  [E]nsuring that U.S. patent infringement claims are adjudicated in U.S. courts is ‘necessary to provide full justice to the parties’ in this case because BMW seeks a jury trial on the infringement claims” (citation omitted).  Further, in Judge Albright’s reading, the Paris Convention “expressly affirms the independence of each country’s patent system and reserves the ‘provisions . . . relating to . . .  jurisdiction’ to each member state” (quoting Voda v. Cordis Corp., 476 F.3d 887, 898-99 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).  In addition, although there is case law authorizing the adjudication of U.S. copyright claims in foreign courts (and, I would note, vice versa), the court notes that “[u]nlike with copyrights, receiving patent protections in the U.S. requires a rigorous application and examination process”; and he cites the act of state doctrine, which in general counsels against second-guessing the exercise of another state’s sovereign authority.  Third, the court finds that an ASI would not offend international comity because “comity is implicated by ‘public international issues,’ but not ‘private’ disputes” (though one might ask, if that is the case, why courts should bother considering comity at all in the context of deciding whether to grant an ASI in a private dispute).  He does note, however, that

 

There are factors present in this case that are abnormal in the ASI context. For instance, the Court is unaware of any cases where an ASI has been granted to terminate the first filed proceedings between the parties. Moreover, this case features the unusual argument by Onesta that BMW would be inconvenienced by defending in a forum outside of its domicile, while BMW seeks courts outside its domicile. . . . But there is no recognized first-filed principle. See Laker Airways Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines, 731 F.2d 909, 927 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (“The mere filing of a suit in one forum does not cut off the preexisting right of an independent forum to regulate matters subject to its prescriptive jurisdiction.”); Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 696 F.3d 872, 887 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The order in which the domestic and foreign suits were filed ... [is] not dispositive.”). And making sure that U.S. patents are tried in U.S. courts, which regularly apply U.S. patent law is more “convenien[t]” for the courts of each sovereign. . . .Finally, given Onesta's domicile in the United States and BMW's desire to litigate here, the Court finds that neither party would be inconvenienced by doing so. . . .

It will be interesting to see what happens on appeal if the parties do not settle the matter or at least agree to some procedure for resolving it--though I suspect that under U.S. law it may be difficult to overturn the decision on appeal.  Nevertheless, here are a few random thoughts:

1.     The court invokes the United States’ interest in adjudicating its own patents and protecting litigants’ rights to a jury trial, to fact discovery, and to an invalidity determination with erga omnes effect.  But of course all of those things would be unavailable in a case in which a foreign court adjudicates foreign copyright rights, about which the court is more sanguine.  And is it really true that the adjudication of U.S. patent infringement claims in a U.S. court is “necessary to provide full justice to the parties” because BMW seeks a jury trial?  To my knowledge, no other country in the world provides jury trials in patent infringement actions (or discovery to the same extent the U.S. does, for that matter); does that mean that every country’s system is unjust?  I suppose the response would be no, it’s just that actions for the infringement of U.S. patent rights come with a guarantee of right to trial by jury, as a matter of U.S. constitutional law (and regardless of whether the party requesting a jury is the plaintiff or the defendant, domestic or foreign), and therefore the Munich court’s inability to convene a jury would render its decision on U.S. patent infringement claims unjust.  But again, if that is true, why isn’t it true for copyright claims—or other instances in which foreign courts might make determinations under U.S. law?

2.  A more serious problem, in my view, is that in countries such as Germany infringement and validity determinations are bifurcated—determined by different courts in different proceedings—such that a judgment of infringement may be entered with regard to a patent later determined to be invalid (the “injunction gap”).  Moreover, injunctive relief in favor of the prevailing patentee is near-automatic, indeed often viewed as being part of the claim for relief, rather than merely a remedy as in Anglo-American law.  See my new book, p.10 n.23 (stating that “in common law systems the law of remedies is viewed as something of a stand-alone discipline, albeit one that may be applied in different ways in relation to different bodies of private law.  In civil law countries such as Germany, by contrast, rights and remedies are viewed as being more closely connected, such that, as indicated in the text above, the infringement of a patent (for example) almost always results in the entry of an injunction. See Franz Hofmann and Franziska Kurz, Introduction to the “Law of Remedies,” in Law of Remedies: A European Perspective 3, 5 (Franz Hofmann and Franziska Kurz eds., Intersentia Ltd. 2019) (stating that “[u]nlike in common law countries, the question is not: which remedies are available to cure a wrong? Instead, German lawyers comprehend the legal system as a compilation of ‘subjective rights’”).”  So if a German court were to decide the infringement action against BMW, would it have to depart from its standard practice and consider whether the U.S. patent is valid?  Would the availability of an injunction be determined under German or under U.S. (eBay) law?  Beats me—but I can see why BMW, despite not being “inconvenienced” by litigating in its home forum, might prefer to take its chances in Texas, despite the possible risk of a larger damages award under U.S. law, if the case were to proceed that far.

3.  As many readers know, German courts generally disapprove of other states granting ASIs directed against the litigation of disputes or the enforcement of judgments in German courts.  That perspective may not matter so much here, however, if the German court itself would prefer not to have to decide some of the questions above, or if it would be inclined in any event to stay the adjudication of the U.S. patents pending proceedings in the U.S. (something the CJEU expressly suggested as a possibility in a case in which an E.U. court is asked to adjudicate a claim arising under another E.U. member state’s law).  But let’s imagine, just for the sake of argument, a case in which an E.U. court was asked to adjudicate a claim for the infringement of a U.S. patent and was not willing to cede jurisdiction to the U.S. court that enjoins the E.U. plaintiff from proceeding in the E.U.; maybe the E.U. court issues an AASI in response.  Which country is violating the comity norm:  the country issuing the ASI (which, one could agree, indirectly interferes with the operation of a foreign court), or the court that claims the right to adjudicate foreign patent claims (which, one could argue, indirectly interferes with the operation of its counterpart)?  Note that the WTO arbitration award last summer in the dispute between the EU and China can be read as disapproving both of ASIs (that is, disapproving of them beyond the context of the Chinese ASI policy at issue) and of the adjudication of foreign IP rights.  See my post on the WTO decision here, points 6b and 6c.  Then again, what precedential value, if any, does a WTO arbitration award have?

4.  There is some non-binding authority under U.S. law that might disagree with the position staked out by Judge Albright in BMW.  For example, section 211 of the American Law Institute’s 2007 Principles of the Law—Intellectual Property, titled “Subject-Matter Jurisdiction over Claims,” recommends that, in general, “a court is competent to adjudicate claims arising under foreign laws pertaining to the subject matter of these Principles,” as long as it has subject matter and personal matter jurisdiction under local law, and as long as “[a] judgment holding registered rights granted under the laws of another State invalid is effective only to resolve the dispute between or among the parties to the action.”  Similarly, in her dissent in Voda v. Cordis, 476 F.3d 887 (Fed. Cir. 2007), Judge Pauline Newman disputed, among other things, the characterization of patent grants as “acts of state” (as opposed to ministerial acts) for purposes of the act of state doctrine, and also did not believe that the Paris Convention or TRIPS Agreement “prohibits resolution by a national court of private disputes that include foreign patent rights.  She wrote:

The panel majority raises the specter that foreign courts might adjudicate United States patent rights, proposing that if our courts are permitted to decide questions under foreign patent law, other countries will feel free to decide questions of United States patent law. Cordis too sounds the alarm, stating that creative litigants will choose exotic foreign forums to resolve complex patent issues, and that the district court's decision will open the door to international chaos. I doubt that a United States district court is an exotic foreign forum; and it is not new for courts in other countries to apply the law of other nations when warranted. . . . All nations have recognized their obligation to provide a judicial forum to address disputes involving their citizens; no warrant has been shown to remove foreign patents from this purview.

Judge Newman’s dissent did not expressly grapple with Paris Convention articles 2(3) and 4bis, however, though perhaps an argument could be made that neither provision necessarily or inherently entails exclusive adjudicatory jurisdiction.  Whether that is the correct reading of the Convention, I’m not sure.  

Blogging break this week

 I just came down with a mild case of COVID.  I will be taking a blogging break this week.

Aggregate Royalties for Cellular SEPs

Nadia Soboleva and John Hayes have published an article titled Aggregate Royalty for Cellular SEPs in Recent Court Decisions, 11/2025 GRUR Patent 546.  Here is the abstract:

 

Standards organizations developing cellular communication standards typically require participants to disclose standard essential patents (SEPs) and agree to license such patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. When courts are asked to adjudicate license disputes involving SEPs, they often calculate the implied aggregate royalty for all SEPs in the relevant standard associated with a potential license.  We review five recently litigated FRAND cases and report the aggregate royalty per mobile device in most of these decisions falls in a range from $3 to $16, with an average of $9.25.  The aggregate royalty by the UK Court of Appeal in Optis/Apple is an outlier of $39.47.

The five cases are the U.S. TCL v. Ericsson decision, Unwired Planet, InterDigital v. Lenovo, Optis v. Apple, and the Chinese Oppo v. Nokia decision.  The authors write that these cases “encompass the only publicly available decisions that set a worldwide FRAND royalty for the 4G or 5G cellular standards.”

A few quick things to note.  First, the authors are both from Charles River Associates, and they note that they “have worked on multiple projects involving SEPs, including some of the matters discussed in” their article.  Second, I haven’t endeavored to check the authors’ analysis against the decisions they discuss.  I have no reason too question their analysis, but for now I am just reporting what they state.  Third, a range of $3 to $16 seems pretty broad to me, even without Optis/Apple (the appeal from which is pending before the U.K. Supreme Court).  Fourth, as noted previously on ip fray, the Munich Regional Court recently suggested in its decision involving Wilus and Asus that a rate of 10-18% for all SEPs reasonably necessary for operation of a mobile device would be within the FRAND range (see decision here, para. 294:  “Ausgehend von diesem Wert für den wichtigsten Standard (Mobilfunk) liegt die Gesamtbelastung für ein Mobiltelefon für alle für einen sinnvollen Betrieb erforderlichen Standards (Mobilfunk, Wi-Fi, Streaming, etc.) bei ca. 10% bis 18%.”).  For a mid-priced phone, that would be substantially higher than the aggregate royalty the above authors report, assuming that they and the Munich court are talking about the aggregate royalty burden for the same combinations of technologies.  Fifth, even if these are the only decisions available for the purpose of the study, five cases are a small sample, and whether the derived amounts accurately reflect FRAND rates depends on whether the courts in these cases got their numbers right; and some commentators have critiqued the methodology employed in, e.g., Unwired Planet.   Even so, one might be inclined to think that the Munich court’s range seems rather high, all things considered.

New EC Study on IPRED

There already has been a lot going on in the IP world this year, especially in relation to SEPs  in the U.K., Germany, and China; and unfortunately, I am still a bit underwater for a variety of reasons--including the fact I’m teaching one-and-a-half-new courses this semester; the release of my new book Remedies in Intellectual Property Law; and going through edits (and very soon, page proofs) for my other new (forthcoming) book, Wrongful Patent Assertion.  As I work on catching up on the backlog, I thought I should mention the recent publication of the European Commission‘s Follow-up study on the application of the Directive on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, which I have begun reading.  For now, I will note a few things, mostly from the Executive Summary. and expect to have more to say about some of these issues in the weeks to come.  (As Florian Mueller notes on ip fray, the research that went into the study was concluded in 2024, so there isn’t much there about the UPC.  But what the report does address is, in my view, of substantial interest.) 

As stated in the Executive Summary, the study focuses on “five priority research topics”:  proportionality; PAEs; dynamic blocking injunctions; information sharing and data protection; and costs for the destruction of infringing goods.  Of these, the first two are of greatest relevance to patent law (though all are important to IP law, and my new remedies book provides some measure of discussion of blocking injunctions, the right to information, and the destruction remedy).  One thing that caught my attention is that, according to the study, in patent cases courts in EU member states grant permanent injunctions in 94% of cases, and that “proportionality was explicitly assessed in only 0.6% of these cases.” This is not exactly surprising, but it is interesting to see the statistics.  The study suggests that it might be useful to have some sort of harmonized criteria for determining when proportionality should limit matters such as injunctive relief and destruction orders, and in this regard “concludes that the Commission could issue guidelines defining factors which courts should assess when applying the proportionality principle, such as i) the nature of the plaintiff, ii) the economic harm suffered by the parties, and iii) the public interest.”  The full discussion of proportionality, found in section 3.1 of the report (pp. 27-50), includes some comparative analysis from different member states; discussion of some leading cases; and possible avenues for reform.  As for PAEs, the study states that “their presence in the EU remains relatively limited” compared to the U.S., but also notes that “the data could be showing only the tip of the iceberg as parties may settle disputes outside the courts.”  It also “found that PAEs are highly concentrated in Germany,” and calls for greater transparency “particularly in jurisdictions such as Germany where court decisions are not systematically published.”  The full discussion of PAEs, found in section 3.2 (pp. 50-69), includes, among other things, discussion of why (according to Darts-IP) 90%+ of all PAE activity takes place in the U.S. (among them, no loser-pays rule except in exceptional cases, much higher damages awards, and lack of specialized trial courts), and also suggests that the development of proportionality guidelines could help to forestall (future?) abusive litigation by PAEs within the EU.

Johnson on Assessments of Patent Damages in the U.K.

Phillip Johnson has published an interesting article titled The assessment of damages in patent infringement:  General Tire and a history of uncertainty, 15 Queen Mary J. Intell. Prop. 440 (2025).  Here is the abstract:

A court undertaking an assessment of damages has been a rare thing across most of the history of patent law. The House of Lords decision in General Tire & Rubber Company and Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company [1976] RPC 197 looked like it would provide some certainty. But as an exploration of the archive materials surrounding the Patents Bill shows, contemporaries took an entirely different view of the decision. A historical analysis shows not only the importance of the case but also the confusion it caused and how the proposed remedy of a statutory damages rule might have been worse than the cure.

The article traces the development of U.K. case law concerning patent damages beginning in the nineteenth century.  After enactment of the Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Act 1883, there was a flurry of case law on damages from 1885-1925, after which there were no reported decisions until General Tire in the mid-1970s.  Lord Wilberforce’s speech in that case embraced the framework proposed in Lord Justice Fletcher Moulton’s 1911 decision in Meters Ltd. v. Metropolitan Gas Meters Ltd., to the effect that judges should consider licenses already “granted and the rates of royalty fixed by them, to estimate their relevance and comparability, to apply them so far as he can to the bargain hypothetically to be made between the patentee and the infringer, and to the extent to which they do not provide a figure on which the damage can be measured, to consider any other evidence, according to its relevance and weight, upon which he can fix a rate of royalty which would have been agreed.”  Professor Johnson’s research shows that in the wake of this decision, there was serious discussion of enacting a bill that might have expressly codified a “willing licensor/willing licensee” approach to royalty awards, though ultimately no such bill was passed.  Although the Intellectual Property (Enforcement, etc.) Regulation 2006 reflects IPRED article 13 and does reference “the royalties or fees which would have been due had the defendant obtained a licence,” Professor Johnson states that it “did not change practice significantly.” He concludes that the proposed statutory provision in the 1970s might not have improved matters and that “General Tire remains a precious precedent.”

For what it’s worth, I provide some discussion of General Tire, Meters, and some of the other relevant British cases in chapter 3 of Comparative Patent Remedies and in chapter 4 of my new book, Remedies in Intellectual Property Law.  I will be sure to note the above article in any subsequent editions!

*                    *                    *

I've been very busy lately, and will be taking a blogging break next week.  I plan to return the week of February 9. 

German Federal Supreme Court Rejects HMD’s Appeal

In 2024, the European Commission filed an amicus brief in a SEP case, VoiceAge v. HMD, urging the Munich Higher Regional Court to require strict compliance with the sequence of steps laid out in Huawei v. ZTE.  That court rejected the EC’s interpretation, as did the Higher Regional Court a few months later.  (For previous discussion on this blog, see here, here, and here.)  Today, the competition law senate of the Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Supreme Court) rejected HMD’s appeal.  The press release (in German) is here; I would guess there will be a written decision to follow, at some point.  According to the press release, the Court concludes that, in accordance with the CJEU’s decision in Huawei v. ZTE and the BGH’s two previous decisions in FRAND-Einwand  I  and II, SEP owners are not hindered from enforcing their patents against unwilling licensees; and that the evidence in this case, which includes negotiations dating back to 2019, shows the implementer (HMD) to be an unwilling licensee.  Moreover—and consistent with the FRAND-Einwand  I  and II decisions (which, inter alia, require that implementers demonstrate their willingness to license throughout the entire course of negotiations in order to avoid injunctive relief)—the Court has no doubt that TFEU article 102 does not require strict compliance with the sequence of steps set forth in Huawei v. ZTE, and therefore concludes that it is not obligated to refer matter to the CJEU.  The court further sees no reason to address the appellate court’s requirement that, as part of the Huawei v. ZTE framework, the implementer must post security in the amount of the SEP owner’s offer, because in this case, it states, the security the defendant posted wasn’t even as high as its own counteroffer. 

Gervais on Territoriality and Global FRAND Rate-Setting

Daniel Gervais, one of the world’s leading experts on the TRIPS Agreement, has published a very interesting article titled The Principle of Territoriality in International Intellectual Property Law and Its Implications for Global FRAND Rate-Setting, GRUR Int. (advance access pdf available here).  Here is the abstract:

The principle of territoriality under which intellectual property (IP) rights exist and are enforced only within national borders sits uneasily alongside the global nature of standard-essential patent (SEP) licensing disputes. In recent years, courts in Brazil, China, Colombia, Germany, India, the United Kingdom, and now the Unified Patent Court have asserted authority, directly or indirectly, to determine worldwide fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing terms, often without both parties’ consent. These practices, ranging from injunction-driven leverage to comprehensive judicial rate-setting, raise difficult questions about jurisdiction, comity, competition norms, and the coherence of international IP law.

 

This article provides a systematic and comparative analysis of the principle of territoriality in international IP law and its tension with non-consensual global FRAND determinations. It traces the origins and enduring role of territoriality in treaties such as the Paris Convention and TRIPS Agreement, examines its implications for jurisdiction and choice of law, and explains why territoriality remains a cornerstone of global IP governance. It then turns to the distinctive case of SEPs, highlighting the role of standard-setting organizations and the unique licensing challenges they generate. Against this backdrop, the article maps national approaches across key jurisdictions, identifying functional categories (adjudicators, regulators, and leverage providers) and analyzing how their practices interact in transnational disputes.

 

Drawing on recent case law, WTO findings, and comparative treatment of other IP rights, the article argues that non-consensual global FRAND rate-setting undermines the territorial foundation of international IP law and risks destabilizing global markets. At the same time, it acknowledges arguments for efficiency and uniformity, and considers how these objectives might be pursued within a framework that respects sovereignty and due process. The article concludes by proposing both short-term and longer-term solutions, ranging from national court strategies and WTO enforcement to a possible role for WIPO, the US Congress, and the EU, designed to reconcile innovation incentives, market access, and the legitimacy of international dispute resolution.

I may have more comments to follow, but two things leap out to me upon first reading.  One is Professor Gervais’ argument that even the granting of purely domestic injunctions in FRAND cases, as in Germany, effectively albeit indirectly erodes the territoriality principle by “plac[ing] enormous pressure on the implementer to capitulate to the SEP holder’s terms” (p.13).  It might seem to follow from his analysis, then, that to uphold the territoriality principle nations would have to temper their enthusiasm for granting injunctions in at least some cases.  This may be right, though it also may seem a bit paradoxical that upholding the territorial principle under international law, as Professor Gervais understands it, would require nations to temper the use of a remedy (injunctions with domestic effect only, as a legal if not practical matter) that domestic law otherwise would permit in a given case.  (Again, that may be right—the principle seems logically appealing—but I wonder what the limiting principle would be?)  The other thing that caught my attention was Professor Gervais’ embrace of the view that, absent consent by both parties, only domestic courts can adjudicate questions of infringement and validity under domestic patent law.  This is, as previously noted here, the issue at the heart of the pending BMW v. Onesta dispute, in view of the CJEU’s 2025 decision in BSH v. Electrolux (which seems to me to point, whether rightly or not, in the opposite direction).   (Note that the Federal Circuit has temporarily stayed Judge Albright's antisuit injunction from last week, and we are still awaiting Judge Albright's written decision in that case.)