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

Masaki Mikami of Marks IP explains how he helped prove acquired distinctiveness to secure protection for 'Pocky' in Japan
Daralyn Durie discusses the ‘amazing’ opportunity of working on an AI case, the value of celebrating women, and how to build the next wave of talent
New members of the Access Advance patent pool and Harvard University coming under fire were also among the top talking points
Team from Graham Watt & Co will join Beck Greener’s London office
The firm reported a small uptick in overall revenue and profit per equity partner, while its IP team secured notable life sciences victories
Paul Ainsworth, who secured a settlement for his client in a patent dispute, says the case shows why medical claims by dietary supplement companies can threaten IP rights
Boies Schiller Flexner joins forces with Grünecker to target Skechers in Europe following US lawsuit
Helen Mutimer discusses how the firm’s IP advisory services are filling a gap in the market, and why life sciences work is soaring
In major recent developments, a confidentiality request was rejected, Samsung and its representative A&O Shearman secured a partial win, and EIP made a new hire
Tomas Wässingbo joins us for our ‘Five minutes with’ series to explain why he wants to change the perception around designs
Gift this article