Pantech v Google: Tokyo District Court grants first injunction for SEP infringement

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

Pantech v Google: Tokyo District Court grants first injunction for SEP infringement

Sponsored by

twobirds-400px.jpg
Google Pixel phone

Seiko Hidaka of Bird & Bird and Kento Sumi, currently seconded to Bird & Bird, analyse a landmark decision in a standard-essential patent case and its implications for licensing practices and future litigation in Japan

Pantech v Google is Japan’s third standard-essential patent (SEP) case that addressed the operation of the fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) defence and an important one, because it demonstrates that injunctions can be obtained under SEP rights. Japan is home to several well-known SEP holders, but its economy has its foundations in high-tech manufacturing.

Earlier cases

The Tokyo District Court was one of the first forums to decide a SEP dispute back in 2013, between Apple and Samsung. In 2014, the appeal court affirmed its decision to deny an SEP-based injunction against a willing party on the ground of abuse of rights, which is a civil law concept rather than one rooted in competition law.

The second SEP dispute was between Pantech and ASUS, with decisions delivered earlier this year after a hiatus of over 10 years. We know that at least two proceedings were filed, each relating to two patents. One of the cases found the asserted SEPs infringed; the other did not. No injunction was granted because ASUS was not found to be unwilling to take a licence.

Why did the court order an injunction against Google?

The judgment is not yet publicly available, but according to news reports, the injunction was ordered because Google lacked the intention to license. Both parties had agreed to a court-led mediation, on a global basis. In the process, the court evaluated the FRAND royalty using the method propounded in the Apple v Samsung appeal.

However, Google declined to provide volume and pricing data, describing such details as potentially complicating the evaluation process. This reluctance was deemed to evidence a lack of genuine intent to pursue a licence.

Comparison with Pantech v ASUS

ASUS rejected a global licence solution, but the court did consider ASUS a willing licensee despite that. The court recognised that, given the global nature of SEPs, FRAND licences should generally cover the world. However, with no precedent in Japan for applying international developments in FRAND rate calculation over the past decade, there was no established FRAND rate approach in Japanese practice. Having regard to this, and how wide apart the parties were, it was not unreasonable for ASUS to consider it unrealistic to resolve the dispute on a global basis and to focus instead on the patents in suit.

Parallel case before the Osaka District Court

Little is known of Pantech’s parallel SEP case against Google in Osaka, concerning Pixel 7a. Japanese media reported that the claims in Osaka were rejected on July 10 2025, but few details are available.

Next steps and potential impact

A redacted decision will be published. The details may shed light on further reasoning that led to the finding of unwillingness.

The effect of the injunction on Google will be limited as Pixel 7, the subject product in this case, is a discontinued model (in Japan, claimants generally specify the allegedly infringing products, and a general order not to infringe the patent in suit, as is the usual form in UK patent infringement proceedings, is not typically sought). Pantech is reportedly now applying for an interim injunction covering newer models to increase the pressure. Meanwhile, Google is appealing the decision. Watch this space for further developments.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A new foundation in Chile is giving women in the IP community the mentorship, and visibility they’ve long lacked
The EUIPO is keen to stress the benefits of mediation as a means of resolving IP disputes, but do roadblocks remain?
Åsa Gustafson, global patent paralegal manager at Zacco, provides insight into the world of a paralegal, explains how she keeps abreast of legal developments, and reveals a passion for weaving
Alif Gultom and Andrew Diamond of Januar Jahja & Partners explain why Indonesia must adopt reforms against bad-faith filings and safeguard its trademark system for the future
In the third episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss the ‘Women in IP’ network and the current state of diversity within the profession
Practitioners, including two ex USPTO directors, say the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act could restore clarity and predictability to US patent law, though concerns remain
News of an alliance between two Malaysian law firms and the launch of a self-help video aimed at supporting IP professionals through menopause were also among the top talking points
Speakers at the EUIPO’s IP Mediation Conference discussed how lawyers can act in tandem with clients during mediation, and the importance of showing a united front
A report that revealed top legal LinkedIn influencers are generating hundreds of thousands in advertising value is the push lawyers need to up their social media presence
Speakers at the EUIPO’s Mediation Conference say mediation can offer a ‘cathartic’ and effective alternative to litigation that IP owners should consider
Gift this article