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

IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Tilleke & Gibbins topped the leaderboard with four awards across the region, while Anand & Anand and Kim & Chang emerged as outstanding domestic firms
News of a new addition to Via LA’s Qi wireless charging patent pool, and potential fee increases at the UKIPO were also among the top talking points
Gift this article