![]()
第496期
这篇文章讨论了美国联邦巡回上诉法院（Federal Circuit）在最新的Ericsson v. Lenovo案件中，对禁诉令（Anti-Suit Injunction，简称ASI，即禁止当事人在其他法院诉讼的命令）的“决定性”标准进行的重新阐释及其潜在影响。在此案件中，联邦巡回法院对地区法院的裁决进行了推翻，并对“决定性”标准进行了重新阐释，从而为使用ASI作为抗辩工具的专利实施方提供了新的希望。 地区法院认为，提出ASI的要求之一是国内诉讼的结果必须能对国外诉讼产生决定性影响，例如迫使双方达成全球性的交叉许可协议。因为地区法院认为该案不足以对国外诉讼产生决定性影响，所以拒绝了联想的ASI申请。联邦巡回法院指出，地区法院对“决定性”标准的理解过于狭隘。法院明确，国内诉讼无需直接导致全球交叉许可协议即可满足“决定性”标准，只需能够解决相关外国诉讼中的核心争议（例如，禁止执行外国禁令）。联邦巡回法院还明确，如果专利权人未履行其公平、合理和非歧视（FRAND）承诺中的善意协商义务，则无权申请基于标准必要专利（SEP）的禁令救济。此裁决降低了ASI“决定性”标准的门槛，使实施方更容易提出ASI申请，并为专利权人设定了更高的合规义务门槛。此裁决可能为未来涉及标准必要专利（SEP）争议的ASI策略提供新的参考和指导。我是大岭先生，这是我为您分享IP英文的第496天。如果本文对您有帮助，欢迎您分享到朋友圈。
The Federal Circuit Swings the Door to Anti-Suit Injunctions Back Open
November 08, 2024 | Mintz - Michael T. Renaud, Courtney Herndon, Hannah M. Edge
In our blog, Another Implementer Hold Out Door Closes: The Death of the Anti-Suit Injunction? earlier this year, we suggested that a popular implementer patent hold out tactic may be off the table based on an order issued by Judge Terrence Boyle in the Eastern District of North Carolina (EDNC). In Ericsson v. Lenovo, the District Court denied Lenovo’s motion requesting an anti-suit injunction (“ASI”) seeking to prevent Ericsson from enforcing SEP injunctions obtained in foreign actions. Based on the District Court’s order, it seemed that the door to ASIs was essentially closed. However, the Federal Circuit recently explained that this is not necessarily the case, and in fact, it appears that the door remains wide open. As we explained in our February blog, the District Court noted that, among other requirements, a party requesting an ASI must show that resolution of the case before the court will be dispositive of the foreign actions to be enjoined. The District Court found that the instant suit was not dispositive of the foreign action, and therefore denied the requested ASI without reaching the second and third parts of the analysis. It reasoned that, to be dispositive, the domestic suit would have to result in a global cross-license between the parties. The District Court explained that “the Court is not persuaded that resolving the underlying contract issues will force either Lenovo or Ericsson into a global licensing agreement that would resolve the patent infringement claims at the core of the Brazilian and Colombian actions” and, therefore, denied Lenovo’s motion without reaching the rest of the ASI analysis.The Federal Circuit’s DecisionOn appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the District Court’s denial of Lenovo’s motion and remanded. Most notably, as explained below, the Federal Circuit clarified the “dispositive” standard for the ASI threshold inquiry.After recounting the framework as articulated in Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 696 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2012), the Federal Circuit outlined the parties’ positions and the District Court’s reasoning on the “dispositive” requirement. Ultimately, the Federal Circuit determined that the District Court’s analysis was erroneous. It explained that “Ericsson’s and the district court’s interpretation of what it takes to meet the ‘dispositive’ requirement rests on a misunderstanding of Microsoft.” Contrary to Ericsson’s and the District Court’s positions, the Federal Circuit “see[s] nothing in the Microsoft district court opinion that treated as ‘critical’ the fact that the suit before it would result in a license.” Thus, the Federal Circuit explained that “the district court legally erred when it reasoned that, to be dispositive, the domestic suit must necessarily result in a global cross-license” and concluded that “the ‘dispositive’ requirement can be met even though a foreign antisuit injunction would resolve only a foreign injunction (and not the entire foreign proceeding), and even though the relevant resolution depends on the potential that one party’s view of the facts or law prevails in the domestic suit.” After clarifying the “dispositive” standard for the ASI threshold inquiry, the Federal Circuit turned back to the facts of the instant dispute, and ultimately concluded that the “dispositive” requirement was met. The Federal Circuit, exercising its discretion to reach the contract issue not addressed by the District Court, determined that “a party that has made an ETSI FRAND commitment must have complied with the commitment’s obligation to negotiate in good faith over a license to its SEPs before it pursues injunctive relief based on those SEPs.” This means that an SEP holder “cannot just spring injunctive actions against other standard implementers without having first complied with some standard of conduct. That standard of conduct, we conclude, must be—at a minimum—the very one imposed by the FRAND commitment’s good-faith negotiating obligation.”. Though the Federal Circuit premised this analysis on the Court’s interpretation of the ETSI FRAND commitment, it acknowledged that “such a conclusion fits well within the general common-law principle, recognized in at least this country, that ‘one seeking equitable relief [e.g., an injunction] must do equity and come into court with clean hands.’”Thus, the Federal Circuit concluded that the “dispositive” requirement was met here because: “(1) the ETSI FRAND commitment precludes Ericsson from pursuing SEP-based injunctive relief unless it has first complied with the commitment’s obligation to negotiate in good faith over a license to those SEPs; and (2) whether Ericsson has complied with that obligation is an issue before the district court. Accordingly, if the court determines that Ericsson has not complied with that obligation, that determination will dictate the impropriety of Ericsson’s pursuing its SEP-based injunctive relief.” The Federal Circuit’s opinion seemingly swings the door to patent hold out through ASIs back open, while providing clarity on the “dispositive” requirement. This opinion has practical implications for all parties engaged in global FRAND/RAND disputes. It reminds implementers that ASIs are still on the table and appears to lower the bar for implementers to satisfy the “dispositive” requirement. Now, the appropriate inquiry is whether the party opposing an ASI complied with its FRAND/RAND obligations before seeking injunctive relief, not whether the US litigation resolves the entire foreign litigation. For SEP owners seeking to enforce foreign injunctions, it appears that in order to satisfy this inquiry, they may not only have to come to US courts with clean hands, but also with evidence of FRAND/RAND compliance.The future of ASIs is uncertain. While the long-term implications of Ericsson v. Lenovo are unknown, for now, this is a setback for SEP owners looking to efficiently encourage potential licensees to minimize hold out conduct. Because the Federal Circuit remanded to the District Court, it is possible that this setback is temporary, and the District Court will provide important guidance on whether an injunction is a credible risk in a US court for implementers looking to deploy hold out tactics in SEP negotiations. The Federal Circuit will likely have the final say, in the inevitable future appeal, as to whether the US is open for business to consider injunctions in SEP cases when there has been licensee hold out. -End-
Source:www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2336/2024-11-07-federal-circuit-swings-door-anti-suit-injunctions-back
Each article is copyrighted to their original authors. The news is for informational purposes only and does not provide legal advice.
美国外观设计专利判定标准大变革 | 每日IP英文第491期
美国337调查对SEP案件的重要作用 | 每日IP英文第490期
海外专利申请制度-加拿大 | 每日IP英文第489期
知识产权许可协议的关键问题 | 每日IP英文第488期
美国专利商标局：在AI帮助下作出的发明可以获得授权 | 每日IP英文第487期
欧洲统一专利法院启动后，德国成为欧洲专利诉讼的首选之地 | 每日IP英文第486期
欧洲专利局专利异议程序简介 | 每日IP英文第485期
德国知识产权诉讼的最新进展和趋势 | 每日IP英文第484期
欧盟的标准必要专利草案，可以解决业界难题吗？| 每日IP英文第482期
知识产许可协议，应该注意什么？| 每日IP英文第481期
关于我们
大岭IP团队为郝政宇律师领衔的国内领先的知识产权律师团队。郝律师为北京观韬律师事务所合伙人、律师、专利代理师。郝律师曾在国家知识产权局从事多年专利审查和复审工作，此后在多家知名律所执业多年，代理众多企业应对知识产权纠纷，擅长处理技术类知识产权案件，部分案件入选知识产权指导案例，现担任10余家上市公司知识产权法律顾问，入选The Legal 500 知识产权律师、2023年“中国50位50岁以下知识产权精英律师”等榜单，主编《科创板企业上市知识产权指南》《专利侵权风险防控—FTO分析实务指南》《专利分析》等专著。团队成员全部毕业于知名院校，具有丰富的知识产权诉讼经验。知识产权诉讼：专利、技术秘密、商标、著作权、不正当竞争、技术合同、知识产权权属纠纷等知识产权顾问：专利挖掘和布局、专利FTO分析，知识产权许可和交易，企业知识产权法律顾问、企业IPO知识产权辅导、数据合规、开源软件合规等电话：134 3962 0218
邮箱：haozy@guantao.com
欢迎添加郝律师微信交流与合作
如果您对知识产权实务也感兴趣
欢迎添加大岭先生微信
加入“大岭IP知识产权实务交流群9”
![]()
▼更多知识产权实务文章，欢迎点击关注本公众号
星标本公众号，共同成长
关注“大岭IP”公众号后：
1. 后台回复“司法解释”，获得现行有效的知识产权司法解释汇编，包括官方解读；
2. 后台回复“指导案例”，获得2008年-2023年中国知识产权指导案例合集；
您的分享、点赞，是对我们团队的最大支持！
欢迎您通过评论留下您的观点，和更多人分享您的经验~~~
