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 2026

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

Cookies Settings

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

Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Carpmaels & Ransford hires its fourth partner of the year and wins access to UPC files, as fresh orders address costs, confidentiality and the use of divisional patents
Gift this article