On December 18, 2025, the patent litigation concerning Pixel smartphones that had been ongoing between Google and South Korea’s Pantech was resolved through a settlement at the Tokyo District Court. As a result, all lawsuits and provisional injunction proceedings between the two companies relating to cellular communications technologies will be brought to an end.
This case goes beyond the mere resolution of a dispute between two companies. It highlights the inherent difficulties of licensing negotiations over standard-essential patents (SEPs) and sheds light on the realities of intellectual property strategies in the global smartphone market.
How SEP Negotiations Escalate into Litigation
In 2021, Pantech approached Google to initiate licensing negotiations for its SEP portfolio related to cellular communication standards such as 4G and 5G. However, the negotiations did not proceed smoothly, and in 2022 Pantech filed patent infringement lawsuits against Google in Germany and Japan.
In Japan, the outcomes diverged. In June 2025, the Tokyo District Court ruled in favor of Pantech in litigation concerning the Pixel 7, prompting Google to file an appeal. By contrast, in July, the Osaka District Court dismissed Pantech’s claims in a separate case involving the Pixel 7a. These differing results once again demonstrate that, even within the same technological field, outcomes in SEP disputes can vary significantly depending on patent claim structures and differences in product implementation.
The Substance and Significance of the Settlement
Under the settlement, Google was granted a comprehensive license to Pantech’s global SEP portfolio. This brought all disputes related to 4G and 5G standards to an end, eliminating concerns that the sale of Pixel devices or their supply to partner companies might be affected.
In its statement, Google emphasized its commitment to fair and reasonable negotiations based on FRAND terms. This comment can be interpreted not merely as an assertion of its own legitimacy, but as a message that Google intends to continue valuing a delicate balance—between excessive enforcement by SEP holders and free-riding by implementers.
The Presence of “Former Manufacturer” Pantech
Pantech, once a leading mobile phone manufacturer in South Korea, relaunched itself after bankruptcy as a wholly owned subsidiary of the patent management company IdeaHub. Today, Pantech is no longer a product manufacturer, but a company that conducts a global licensing business centered on patents and trademarks.
This type of entity using SEPs as leverage in litigation has become increasingly common in recent years. While it is rational for companies without products—or those that have exited product businesses—to generate revenue by leveraging legacy technological assets, such strategies also tend to create friction with implementing companies.
Implications for the Industry
This settlement suggests that, in SEP disputes, a comprehensive licensing agreement often emerges as the most practical final resolution. Even when litigation yields mixed outcomes, companies operating globally tend to prioritize long-term business stability.
Moreover, SEP negotiations are shaped not only by legal strength, but also by negotiating posture, timing, and assessments of market impact. This case offers valuable lessons not only for the smartphone industry, but also for other expanding fields that rely on communication standards, such as IoT and automotive connectivity.
Conclusion
At first glance, the settlement between Google and Pantech may appear to be simply the conclusion of a single lawsuit. In reality, it reflects the complex dynamics surrounding SEPs and the pragmatic decision-making of global enterprises. As technological standards become more advanced and complex, the question of how intellectual property should be respected and utilized will continue to confront the industry as a whole.