United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee

ERICSSON AB, ERICSSON, INC., Counterclaim Defendants-Appellees

v.

LENOVO (UNITED STATES), INC., MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, Defendants/Counter-Claimants-Appellants

LENOVO (SHANGHAI) ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., LENOVO BEIJING, LTD., LENOVO GROUP LIMITED, MOTOROLA (WUHAN) MOBILITY TECHNOLOGIES COMMUNICATION CO., LTD., Defendants ______________________

2024-1515 ______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina in No. 5:23-cv-00569- BO-RJ, Judge Terrence William Boyle. ______________________

Decided: October 24, 2024 ______________________ Case: 24-1515 Document: 84 Page: 2 Filed: 10/24/2024

2 TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v. LENOVO (UNITED STATES), INC.

JEFFREY A. LAMKEN, MoloLamken LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff/counterclaim defendant-appellee and counterclaim defendants-appellees. Also represented by KAYVON GHAYOUMI, RAYINER HASHEM, CALEB HAYES- DEATS, LUCAS M. WALKER; CATHERINE MARTINEZ, New York, NY; BLAKE H. BAILEY, McKool Smith, P.C., Houston, TX; ALEXANDER JEFFERSON CHERN, NICHOLAS M. MATHEWS, Dallas, TX; THEODORE STEVENSON, III, Alston & Bird LLP, Dallas, TX.

JOHN C. O’QUINN, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendants/counter-claimants-appellants. Also represented by WILLIAM H. BURGESS, LUCAS HENRY FUNK, DIVA R. HOLLIS, CHRISTOPHER MIZZO, JASON M. WILCOX; GREG AROVAS, LESLIE M. SCHMIDT, New York, NY. ______________________

Before LOURIE, PROST, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. PROST, Circuit Judge. Lenovo asked the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina to issue an antisuit injunction prohibiting Ericsson from, among other things, enforcing injunctions that Ericsson had obtained in Colombia and Brazil.1 The district court denied Lenovo’s request, and Lenovo appeals. We vacate the district court’s denial and remand.

1 For simplicity’s sake, “Lenovo” refers, collectively or individually, to appellants Lenovo (United States), Inc., Motorola Mobility LLC, and any relevant subsidiaries or affiliates thereof; “Ericsson” refers, collectively or individually, to appellees Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Ericsson AB, and Ericsson, Inc.; and, unless context indicates otherwise, the “parties” refer to Lenovo and Ericsson. Case: 24-1515 Document: 84 Page: 3 Filed: 10/24/2024

TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v. 3 LENOVO (UNITED STATES), INC.

BACKGROUND I This dispute concerns the 5G wireless-communication standard developed by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (“ETSI”)2—and, particularly, patents declared to be essential to complying with that standard (standard-essential patents or “SEPs”). ETSI develops technical standards that ensure interoperability among different companies’ products. Because SEPs, by definition, must be practiced in order to comply with a given standard, SEP holders “wield significant power over [standard] implementers during licensing negotiations.” TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, 943 F.3d 1360, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2019); see also Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201, 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (observing that SEP holders could potentially “inhibit widespread adoption of [a] standard” by “demand[ing] excessive royalties after companies are locked into using [the]