Jury finds against Google in FRAND case
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Lawyers weigh in on the USPTO’s request for comment on the effects of AI on prior art analysis and obviousness determinations
A vast majority of corporates – especially smaller businesses – rely on a trusted referral when instructing external counsel, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The Munich Regional Court ruled that Lenovo was an unwilling licensee and had engaged in ‘holdout’ tactics
Technological innovation should play a critical role in advancing sustainable practices, argues Justin Delfino, global head of IP and R&D at Evalueserve
Ewan Grist of Bird & Bird, who acted for Lidl in its trademark victory against Tesco, reveals some of the lessons brand owners can take from the judgment
Dolby’s lawsuit at the Delhi High Court follows a record win by Ericsson earlier this year against the same defendant
Tee Tan, chief information officer at the owner of several IP firms, says to avoid tech just for the sake of it and explains how his company builds in-house tools
Regardless of whether the FTC’s ban on non-competes goes into effect, businesses should stop relying on these agreements
Mary Till, a former legal advisor at the USPTO who has joined Finnegan this week, is looking forward to providing clients with a USPTO perspective
Gift this article