On June 24, 2024, the Tokyo District Court issued an injunction against Google’s Japanese subsidiary, ordering a halt to the sale of its Pixel 7 series. The decision stems from allegations that Google used a Standard Essential Patent (SEP) related to 4G/LTE technology, owned by Korea’s Pantech, without permission.
What Was the Issue?
SEPs are patents deemed essential to implement specific technological standards. In the case of communication standards such as 4G/LTE, devices must inevitably use these patents to comply with the specifications. Therefore, patent holders are obligated to license these patents under FRAND terms—Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory conditions.
Although Pantech offered its patents under FRAND terms, it claimed that Google refused to comply and continued to avoid entering into a license agreement. The Tokyo District Court found this behavior “dishonest” on Google’s part and issued the injunction accordingly.
Key Points Considered by the Court
Significantly, the court’s decision emphasized not only the validity of the patent and the presence of infringement, but also harshly criticized Google’s attitude during negotiations. The “good faith” shown in license negotiations is increasingly becoming a focal point in international patent litigation, alongside questions of infringement.
Injunction on an Already Discontinued Product
While the Pixel 7 series is no longer sold directly, the symbolic impact of the injunction is considerable. There are growing concerns that the ruling could affect future models such as the Pixel 8 and 9 series. According to Korean media, Pantech has already filed for a preliminary injunction against these next-generation models with the Tokyo District Court.
Potential for a Broader Patent War Between Japan and Korea
This case signals that a pattern of frequent patent disputes seen in the U.S. and China is now emerging in the Japanese market. Notably, it is extremely rare for a Japanese court to issue a sales ban in an SEP-related case, making this a strategic victory for Pantech. For Google, the ruling sets a precedent that international FRAND obligations cannot be avoided—even by a local subsidiary.
Points to Watch Going Forward
- Whether Google will file an appeal (potential escalation to the Intellectual Property High Court)
- The outcome of the preliminary injunctions sought for the Pixel 8/9 series
- Future developments in SEP/FRAND case law in Japan
- Ripple effects on other device manufacturers (Apple and Samsung may also be affected)
“If you use the technology, get a license”—a principle that sounds straightforward but is entangled in complex international business realities. This case highlights how perceptions of patent risk in the Japanese market may significantly shift moving forward.