Lenovo Group Limited & Ors v Ericsson Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2941 (Pat)
Lenovo Group Limited & Ors v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) & Anor
18 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 846 (Ch)
High Court
Lenovo and Ericsson are fighting over patents. Lenovo sued Ericsson in England. Ericsson tried to stop the case, but the judge said Lenovo's case is good enough to continue. The judge also said England is the best place to solve this problem, even though similar cases are happening in other countries. The judge wants to speed things up because Lenovo's business is being hurt, but they'll have another meeting to set a schedule.
Key Facts
- •Lenovo and Ericsson, competing companies with standard-essential patents (SEPs), are involved in a decade-long dispute over global cross-licensing.
- •Multiple lawsuits are ongoing in various jurisdictions (US, Brazil, Colombia, ITC).
- •Lenovo initiated Part 7 proceedings in England against Ericsson, seeking declarations, injunctions, and challenging the validity of Ericsson's patents.
- •Ericsson contested jurisdiction in the English court and sought to strike out parts of Lenovo's claims.
- •The English proceedings involve claims for SEP infringement, patent validity challenges, FRAND declarations, competition law violations, and injunctions.
Legal Principles
To strike out a claim, the defendant must show the claim discloses no reasonable grounds.
CPR 3.4(2)
To amend a pleading to include a new claim, the claimant must show the new claim has a real prospect of success.
CPR 17.3
To serve a claim out of the jurisdiction, the claimant must show the claim raises a serious issue to be tried.
CPR 6.37
Merits tests for strike-out, amendment, and service out applications require a claim to carry some degree of conviction, be properly pleaded, and supported by evidence.
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd v James Kemball Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 33
In jurisdiction questions, the court considers if England is the natural or appropriate forum, applying the Spiliada two-stage test.
Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460
One permissible claim cannot be used as a 'Trojan horse' to permit other claims lacking jurisdiction.
Donohue v Armco Inc [2001] UKHL 64
The court has the power to stay proceedings behind parallel proceedings overseas, but only in rare or compelling circumstances.
Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd [2020] UKSC 37
Outcomes
Ericsson's strike-out application largely fails.
Lenovo's claims, including for a FRAND injunction and declarations, satisfy the merits test and have a reasonable prospect of success.
Lenovo's application to amend largely succeeds.
The proposed amendments, including the FRAND injunction claim, meet the merits test.
Ericsson's application to set aside permission to serve out largely fails.
Lenovo's claims pass through relevant gateways in PD 6B.
Ericsson's application for a case management stay is refused.
The EDNC proceedings are unlikely to conclude earlier than the English proceedings, and there's doubt if they will determine a FRAND global cross-license.
Lenovo's application for expedition is partially granted.
There is good reason for expedition due to the ongoing business disruption caused by injunction proceedings in other jurisdictions. However, a further CMC will be held to determine specific timings.
Similar Cases
Lenovo Group Limited & Ors v Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1036 (Pat)
Motorola Mobility LLC & Anor v Ericsson Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1267 (Ch)
Interdigital Technology Corporation v Lenovo Group Limited
[2023] EWHC 1578 (Pat)
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Xiaomi Technology UK Limited & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1733 (Pat)