Jury finds against Google in FRAND case

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Jury finds against Google in FRAND case

A jury in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington has awarded Microsoft more than $14 million in damages and costs in its FRAND dispute with Motorola (now owned by Google)

The eight-person jury unanimously found this week that Motorola had breached its contractual commitments to standards bodies the IEEE and ITU after less than four hours of deliberation.

The commitments concern the licensing of standard-essential patents.

As a result of Motorola’s legal action, Microsoft relocated a distribution centre in Germany and the jury awarded it $11,492,686 in compensation, about half of what Microsoft was seeking.

It also awarded £3,031,720 in attorney fees and litigation costs.

The decision is part of a long-running battle between the two companies over standard-essential patents in the Western District.

In April this year, Judge James L Robart issued a judgment ordering Microsoft to pay Motorola Mobility $1.8 million a year for the use of standard-essential patents relating to the H.264 video standard and the 802.11 wireless standard, well below what Motorola had demanded.

Microsoft argued before the jury that Motorola breached its standards obligations because its demands were “wildly excessive”, “completely unfounded” and “commercially unreasonable”.

Microsoft’s corporate vice president and deputy general counsel David Howard said in a statement: “This is a landmark win for all who want products that are affordable and work well together. The jury's verdict is the latest in a growing list of decisions by regulators and courts telling Google to stop abusing patents.”

Motorola said it would appeal the decision, stating: “We're disappointed in this outcome, but look forward to an appeal of the new legal issues raised in this case. In the meantime, we'll focus on building great products that people love.”

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Howard Hogan, IP partner at Gibson Dunn, says AI deepfakes are driving lawyers to rethink how IP protects creativity and innovation
Vivien Chan joins us for our ‘Women in IP’ series to discuss gender bias in the legal profession and why the business model followed by law firms leaves little room for women leaders
Partner Jeremy Hertzog explains how his team worked through a huge amount of disclosure from Adidas and what victory means for the firm
Evarist Kameja and Hadija Juma at Bowmans explain why a new law in Tanzania marks a significant shift in IP enforcement
In the wake of controversy surrounding Banksy’s recent London mural, AJ Park’s Thomas Huthwaite and Eloise Calder delve into the challenges street artists face in protecting their works and rights
Alex Levkin, founder of IPNote, discusses reshaping the filing industry through legal tech, and why practitioners’ advice should stretch beyond immediate legal needs
Cohausz & Florack, together with Krieger Mes & Graf von der Groeben, has taken action against Amazon on behalf of three VIA LA licensors
In the fourth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss unconscious bias in the IP workplace and how to address it
Greg Munt, who has moved from Griffith Hack to James & Wells after four decades, hails his new firm’s approach to client service
Practitioners warn that closing the Denver regional office could trigger a domino effect, threatening local innovation and access to IP resources
Gift this article