On June 23, 2025, the Tokyo District Court ruled in favor of Pantech Corporation (“Pantech”) in a patent infringement lawsuit against Google G.K. (“Google”), granting an injunction against the importation and sale of Google's “Pixel 7” smartphones. (Tokyo District Court Judgment June 23, 2025 (Case No. 2023 (Wa) 70501))
Background
Pantech, a South Korean company, sued Google (Japanese subsidiary) for infringing its Japanese Patent No. 6401224 (the “Patent”). Pantech alleged that Google’s Pixel 7 smartphones, which are compatible with the LTE communication standard, practice the technology covered by the Patent. The Patent is an SEP for the LTE standard, and Pantech had made a FRAND declaration to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI).
Pantech sought an injunction to prohibit Google from importing, offering for sale (including display), or transferring the infringing products. Google defended by arguing non-infringement and invalidity of the Patent and further contended that Pantech’s request for an injunction was an abuse of rights because Google was a “willing licensee” prepared to take a license on FRAND terms.
The Patent
The Patent, titled “Method for mapping a physical hybrid automatic repeat request indicator channel,” relates to technology in cellular communication systems like LTE.
In such systems, control signals must be mapped onto a grid of time and frequency resources. The Physical Hybrid ARQ Indicator Channel (“PHICH”) is a channel used to transmit acknowledgment signals (ACK/NACK) indicating whether data has been correctly received. The Invention provides a specific method for mapping PHICH signals to resource elements in Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (“OFDM”) symbols. The purpose is to prevent interference and signal collision between adjacent communication cells by considering the number of available resources in each OFDM symbol and using the cell's specific ID in the mapping calculation.
Negotiation Process and Court Proceedings
The licensing negotiations between Pantech and Google began in June 2020 when Pantech proposed negotiations for a license covering its 3G/4G patent portfolio. Key events in the negotiations and subsequent legal actions are as follows:
(1) Initial Negotiations (2020-2022)
In July 2020, Google expressed its willingness to take a license on FRAND terms and proposed entering into a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA). The parties spent significant time negotiating the NDA terms. In January 2021, Pantech made its first licensing offer, proposing a royalty rate based on a percentage of the product's selling price (e.g., 0.75% for the US, Europe, Japan, and Korea).
(2) Counter-offer and Dead-end
In March 2022, after extensive analysis, Google made a counter-offer. Google's proposal was based on a top-down approach, but it calculated a fixed royalty amount per device, arguing that Pantech's offer was unreasonably high and based on outdated data.
(3) Litigation
Pantech filed a request for a preliminary injunction in August 2022, which was denied by the Tokyo District Court and subsequently by the IP High Court on appeal, on the grounds that Google appeared to be a willing licensee. Pantech then filed the present lawsuit for a permanent injunction in August 2023.
(4) Court-Led Settlement Discussions
During the proceedings, the Court found Pantech's infringement claim to be valid and encouraged the parties to settle. The Court asked the defendant (Google) to propose a new settlement offer based on the calculation method established by the IP High Court’s Grand Panel in the Apple v. Samsung case, which uses the final product's sales price as the starting point for royalty calculation (i.e., a framework that starts from the end-product revenue, applies a contribution ratio and an aggregate royalty cap, and then allocates across the number of SEPs).
Google declined, stating that applying this method to its diverse product lineup would be overly complex and maintained that its own fixed-fee methodology was more reasonable. Google refused to disclose the sales figures and number of units sold for each product model, which would have been necessary for a calculation based on the Court’s suggested method. As a result, the Court terminated the settlement discussions.
The Judgment
The Tokyo District Court granted Pantech’s request for an injunction and rejected Google’s defenses, including abuse of rights.
First, the Court found that Google’s Pixel 7 smartphones infringed the Patent.
Second, the Court rejected Google’s defense of abuse of rights. The Court held that an SEP holder's request for an injunction can only be denied if the implementer is a “willing licensee.” The Court found that Google failed to qualify as a willing licensee due to its conduct during the Court-led settlement negotiations. Despite having agreed to participate in the settlement talks, Google refused the Court’s request to present an offer based on the well-established Grand Panel calculation method and refused to disclose the necessary sales data. The Court viewed this refusal as a rejection of the negotiation process itself, thereby demonstrating a lack of genuine willingness to obtain a license under FRAND terms. The Court stated that since Google itself had foreclosed the possibility of further negotiation, it could not be considered a willing licensee.
Consequently, the Court granted the injunction against Google, along with a provisional execution conditional on Pantech providing a security deposit of JPY 10 million.
Comments
The Court’s decision places weight on a party’s behavior during litigation, especially in the Court-led settlement discussions. While the Court found that Google had expressed its willingness to take a FRAND license during pre-litigation negotiations, its refusal to engage with the Court’s proposed framework for settlement was ultimately decisive. It demonstrates that the Court expects parties to actively cooperate with its settlement procedures and disclosure requests to maintain their status as willing licensees.
This stance was later documented in the Tokyo District Court’s January 2026 Handling Guidelines for SEP Litigation ([Official Tokyo District Court page in Japanese]), which promote early, Court‑led settlement toward a global FRAND framework and emphasize parties’ cooperation and disclosure duties. Namely, the Guidelines clarify that (i) the plaintiff must, in the complaint, set out the specific basis for calculation and propose a global FRAND royalty, (ii) the defendant must, in the answer, specifically admit/deny and rebut the plaintiff’s calculation basis, set out the defendant’s own basis, and submit a counter‑proposal for a global FRAND royalty, together with evidence such as sales volumes and revenues for the accused products, and (iii) if the defendant fails to voluntarily submit evidence necessary to calculate a global FRAND royalty, the Court may regard the defendant as lacking a willingness to take a FRAND license.
Following this judgment, media reports indicate that the parties reached a broader settlement. As part of the agreement, Google agreed to pay license fees for Pantech’s SEPs that are used in 4G and 5G smartphones sold around the world.
This case is notable as it is the first Japanese decision to grant an injunction based on a SEP.
Written by: Mr. Yuichiro Suzuki (Attorney at Law in Japan and California, Patent Attorney in Japan)