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.
