21-01-26 Samsung Motion To Expedite

Case: 21-1565 Document: 4-1 Page: 1 Filed: 01/26/2021 (1 of 63)
No. 2021-1565
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
AND SAMSUNG RESEARCH AMERICA,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas, No. 2:20-CV-380, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap
APPELLANTS’ MOTION TO EXPEDITE BRIEFING

AND ORAL ARGUMENT
Gregory S. Arovas John C. O’Quinn

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP F. Christopher Mizzo
601 Lexington Avenue William H. Burgess
New York, NY 10022 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
(212) 446-4800 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
(202) 389-5000
Counsel for Appellants
January 26, 2021
CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
1. The full name of all entities represented by us are:

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
Samsung Research America.
2. The full names of all real parties in interest not

identified in response to Question 3: None.
3. Parent corporations and publicly held companies that

own 10% or more of the stock in the parties represented by us:
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is a publicly held corporation
organized under the laws of Korea. It has no parent companies, and
no other publicly held company owns 10% or more of its stock.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary

of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. No other publicly held company
owns 10% or more of its stock.
Samsung Research America is a wholly owned subsidiary of

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., which in turn is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. No other publicly held
company owns 10% or more of its stock.
4. The names of all law firms and attorneys who appeared
for the parties now represented by us in the trial court or are
expected to appear in this Court (and who have not or will
not enter an appearance in this case) are:
Kirkland & Ellis LLP: Edward C. Donovan; David Rokach; Karthik

Ravishankar
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP: Kevin Hardy

(withdrawn), Thomas D. Pease (withdrawn)
Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider, LLP: Paul Zeineddin
5. The title and number of any case known to counsel to be

pending in this or any other court or agency that will directly
affect or be directly affected by this court’s decision in the
pending appeal:
i
The Court’s decision in this case may directly affect or be directly

affected by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM
Ericsson, E 01 Zhi Min Chu No. 743 (2020), currently pending in the
People’s Republic of China Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court,
Hubei Province.
6. Any information required under Fed. R. App. P. 26.1(b)

(organizational victims in criminal cases) and 26.1(c)
(bankruptcy case debtors and trustees).
N/A.
ATTACHMENTS
A Memorandum Opinion and Preliminary Injunction, Jan. 11,

2021 (E.D. Tex. Dkt. #45)
B Order Granting Emergency Application for Temporary

Restraining Order and Anti-Interference Injunction, Dec. 28,
2020 (E.D. Tex. Dkt. #14)
C English translation and original text, Injunction entered by

Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court of Hubei Province, in
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM
Ericsson, Dec. 25, 2020 (E.D. Tex. Dkt. #26-9)
ii
MOTION TO EXPEDITE
Appellants (“Samsung”) respectfully request that the Court enter
the following expedited schedule for this appeal.
Appellants’ Opening Brief February 22, 2021

(28 days after docketing)
Appellees’ Response Brief March 22, 2021

(28 days after Opening Brief)
Appellants’ Reply Brief April 5, 2021

and Joint Appendix (14 days after Response Brief)
Oral Argument to be held at the next available session; Fed.

R. App. P. 29 and Fed. Cir. R. 29 apply to any amicus briefs.
Samsung has contacted Appellees (“Ericsson”), and is informed
that Ericsson opposes this motion. Samsung respectfully submits that
there is good cause to expedite this appeal because Samsung is under
an injunction that prejudices its rights not only in the district court but
in other tribunals throughout the United States and in pending
litigation in China. The proposed schedule will not prejudice either
party’s ability to present its arguments to this Court.
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
This is an appeal from a preliminary injunction the district court
issued against Samsung. (Attachment A, at 15). As merits briefs will
1
explain in greater detail, the district court’s injunction issued at
Ericsson’s request, in response to an injunction a Chinese court issued
against Ericsson weeks earlier. (Attachment C, at 11-13). The
underlying dispute in both forums concerns Samsung’s and Ericsson’s
negotiations over a worldwide cross-license to their respective portfolios
of standard-essential patents relating to the 4G and 5G standards.
Samsung and Ericsson’s previous cross-license expired at the end of
2020, and the parties have been negotiating toward a new cross-license.
Each has committed to license their standard-essential patents on fair,
reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms, including
through pledges to the European Telecommunications Standards
Institute.
By December 2020, the parties had not reached agreement on a
new cross-license. Samsung and Ericsson each initiated litigation,
based on the parties’ apparent impasse.
Samsung’s Lawsuit in China. Samsung filed its lawsuit first,
on December 7, 2020, in China. To Samsung’s knowledge, the United
Kingdom and China are the only two forum that are willing to set
global FRAND rates without requiring all parties’ prior consent,
2
provided that the court has jurisdiction over the parties. See, e.g.,
Unwired Planet Int’l Ltd. v. Huawei Tech. Co., [2017] EWHC (Pat) 711
(Eng.), aff’d, [2018] EWCA (Civ) 2344. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
and its Chinese affiliates filed a civil complaint against
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, contending that Ericsson’s licensing
offers to Samsung were inconsistent with Ericsson’s commitments to
license its 4G and 5G-essential patents on FRAND terms, and asking
the court to set FRAND rates. (E.D. Tex. Dkt. #26-2 at 2-3, 8-9)1. The
Chinese court accepted the lawsuit on December 7, and assigned it to a
panel of judges on December 11. Samsung notified Ericsson of the
lawsuit on December 17, 2020. Ericsson has never disputed that
Samsung has complied with all applicable law in prosecuting that suit.
Ericsson’s Lawsuit in Texas. Ericsson filed its lawsuit second,
on December 11, 2020, in the Eastern District of Texas. (E.D. Tex. Dkt.
#1 (Original Complaint)). Ericsson’s complaint asserted contract-based
claims alleging that Samsung had breached its FRAND commitment,
1 “E.D. Tex. Dkt. #” refers to docket entries in the district court case
underlying this appeal, Ericsson Inc. et al. v. Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. et al., E.D. Tex. No. 2:20-CV-380-JRG.
3
and also included a count seeking a declaration that Ericsson had not
breached its FRAND commitment. (E.D. Tex. Dkt. #1 at 17-18).2
The Chinese Court’s Antisuit Injunction. As Samsung’s
briefs to the district court have explained, when a court has jurisdiction
over claims that are likely to resolve broader disputes between the
parties, courts in the United States and elsewhere often enter “antisuit
injunctions” to protect their ability to resolve those claims without
interference. Samsung applied for such an order from the Chinese
court to prevent Ericsson from filing claims elsewhere (such as
duplicative rate-setting claims or claims for injunctive relief on
standard-essential patents) that would interfere with the Chinese
court’s ability to adjudicate claims concerning Ericsson’s worldwide
FRAND commitment. Samsung filed its application on December 14,
and the court granted the injunction on December 25 (which is not a
legal holiday in China). The injunction is attached to this motion
2 On January 1, 2021, Ericsson amended its complaint to add claims

alleging patent infringement. (Dkt. 14 (First Amended Complaint)).
This Court thus has jurisdiction over this appeal. Chamberlain Grp.
v. Skylink Techs., Inc., 381 F.2d 1178, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Federal
Circuit jurisdiction depends on whether the plaintiff’s complaint as
amended raises patent law issues.”).
4
(Attachment C), and its terms are at pages 11-13 of the English
translation. The injunction prevents Ericsson and its affiliates from: (1)
seeking injunctions against Samsung with respect to 4G or 5G
standard-essential patents, (2) enforcing any such injunctions, (3)
seeking to adjudicate licensing terms of Ericsson’s 4G or 5G standard-
essential patents, (4) initiating legal proceedings to determine
Ericsson’s compliance with its FRAND commitments, or (5) asking any
court to require Samsung to withdraw the Chinese court’s injunction or
prevent Samsung from trying to enforce it. (Attachment C at 11-13).
The Chinese court served Ericsson with the injunction from the court
the day it issued. (E.D. Tex. Dkt. #11-1 ¶¶ 7-8 (Mathews Decl.), Dkt.
#11-12 ¶8 (Maharaj Decl.)).
The District Court’s Anti-Antisuit Injunction. On December
28, 2020, Ericsson applied to the district court for an ex parte temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction. Accusing Samsung of
having acted in “secret” to deprive the district court of jurisdiction,
Ericsson sought what it called an “anti-interference injunction” to
counteract parts of the Chinese court’s injunction. The district court
entered a temporary restraining order that same morning (Attachment
5
B). Fourteen days later—after an expedited nine-day briefing schedule
and an in-person hearing—the court issued a preliminary injunction
(Attachment A). This appeal arises from that preliminary injunction.
The injunction has three parts. The first part limits Samsung’s rights
in the district court. The second part limits Samsung’s rights in every
tribunal in the United States. The third part effectively denies the
Chinese court any power to sanction Ericsson for violations of its order.
First, Samsung must “take no action in the Chinese Action that
would interfere with [the district court’s] jurisdiction to determine”
Samsung’s or Ericsson’s compliance with their FRAND obligations with
respect to 4G and 5G standard-essential patents, “or that would
interfere with any other cause of action before this Court.” (Attachment
A at 15)
Second, Samsung must “take no action in the Chinese Action that
would deprive Ericsson” or affiliates “to their rights to assert the full
scope of their U.S. patent rights” before any tribunal in the United
States—not just the district court below. Id.
Third, Samsung must indemnify Ericsson for “any and all fines or
other penal assessments” imposed by the Chinese court, whether “sua
6
sponte … or otherwise” with respect to actions Ericsson takes in the
United States “to lawfully litigate or adjudicate claims relating to the
4G and 5G SEPs identified or involved in this case.” Id.
ARGUMENT
This Court should expedite the appeal under the schedule on the
first page of this motion.
First, Samsung is under an injunction that restricts Samsung’s
rights against Ericsson throughout the United States and subjects it to
conflicting obligations in two courts.
This Court’s Rules provide in the Practice Notes following Rule 27
that a motion to expedite “is appropriate where the normal briefing and
disposition schedule may adversely affect one of the parties, as in
appeals involving preliminary or permanent injunctions or government
contract bid protests.” (emphasis added). This appeal is the type that
this court’s Practice Notes contemplate for expedited treatment.
Samsung is presently under an injunction that limits its rights
throughout the United States in any action Ericsson may file on any 4G
or 5G standard-essential patent in its portfolio.
7
Beginning shortly after midnight on January 1, 2021, Ericsson
began filing lawsuits against Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas,
the ITC, Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands alleging infringement
of non-standard-essential patents (not at issue in the Chinese action)
and seeking an injunction. Samsung anticipates that further suits
seeking injunctive relief on standard-essential patents at issue in the
Chinese action will follow. Under the Chinese court’s order, such
injunctive claims are barred. Yet, under the district court’s order,
Samsung must “take no action in the Chinese Action” that would hinder
Ericsson’s pursuit of such claims in the United States, and must
indemnify Ericsson against any monetary sanctions even if Samsung
takes no action and the Chinese court acts on its own to address any
Ericsson violations of the order.
The district court’s order is conflict with the Chinese court’s order.
The indemnification provision in particular neuters—if not outright
reverses—the Chinese court’s ability to enforce its orders against
Ericsson through financial sanctions. Ericsson will presumably argue
in its merits brief that the conflict between the district court’s and
Chinese court’s orders is acceptable, but for present purposes the point
8
is that the conflict and the resulting uncertainty for the parties should
not be prolonged any longer than is necessary for this Court to consider
this appeal.
Second, the proposed schedule would not prejudice Ericsson’s
ability to present its arguments to this Court. Under the proposed
schedule, Samsung is foregoing 32 of the default 60 days (more than
half) for its opening brief, and 7 of the default 21 days for its reply brief.
See Fed. Cir. R. 31. Ericsson’s deadline for its response brief, by
contrast, would only be shortened by 12 of the default 40 days. The
underlying injunction, moreover, was initiated by Ericsson’s
“emergency” application to the district court (E.D. Tex. Dkt. #11), and
fully briefed within nine days. (Attachment B at 3 (briefing schedule);
E.D. Tex. Dkt. #36 (order setting same-day deadline for surreply)). The
schedule proposed here will give Ericsson ample time to prepare its
brief and prepare for argument.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Samsung respectfully requests that the
Court enter the following expedited schedule for this appeal.
9
Appellants’ Opening Brief February 22, 2021

(28 days after docketing)
Appellees’ Response Brief March 22, 2021

(28 days after Opening Brief)
Appellants’ Reply Brief April 5, 2021

and Joint Appendix (14 days after Response Brief)
Oral Argument to be held at the next available session; Fed.

R. App. P. 29 and Fed. Cir. R. 29 apply to any amicus briefs.
Respectfully submitted,
January 26, 2021 /s/ John C. O’Quinn

Gregory S. Arovas John C. O’Quinn
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP F. Christopher Mizzo
601 Lexington Avenue William H. Burgess
New York, NY 10022 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
(212) 446-4800 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
(202) 389-5000
Counsel for Appellants
10
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMITATION
This motion complies with the type-volume limitations of the
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Rules of this Court.
According to the word-processing system used to prepare this document,
excluding portions exempted by the Rules, this motion contains 1715
words.
/s/ John C. O’Quinn
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On January 26, 2021, this motion and attachments were filed with
the Court via ECF and thereby served on all parties. A courtesy copy
was sent by e-mail to the following counsel who entered appearances for
appellees in the trial court from which this appeal comes:
Blake H. Bailey bbailey@mckoolsmith.com

Christine M. Woodin cwoodin@mckoolsmith.com
Jennifer L. Truelove jtruelove@mckoolsmith.com
Nicholas M. Mathews nmathews@mckoolsmith.com
Nicholas T. Matich nmatich@mckoolsmith.com
Samuel F. Baxter sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com
Theodore Stevenson tstevenson@mckoolsmith.com
/s/ John C. O’Quinn

Case: 21-1565 Document
Case 2:20-cv-00380-JRG Document:
45 4-2 Page: 1 Page
Filed 01/11/21 Filed:101/26/2021
of 16 PageID #: 1427(15 of 63)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
ERICSSON INC., §
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM §
ERICSSON, §
§
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-00380-JRG
§
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., §
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, §
INC., SAMSUNG RESEARCH AMERICA, §
§
Defendants. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Before the Court is the Emergency Application for Temporary Restraining Order and
Anti-Interference Injunction Related to Samsung’s Lawsuit Filed in the Wuhan Intermediate
People’s Court of China (the “Motion”) brought by Plaintiffs Ericsson Inc. and
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (collectively, “Ericsson”). (Dkt. No. 11). Having considered the
parties’ oral arguments, and the briefing by the parties and amici, the Court finds that the Motion
requesting a preliminary injunction should be and hereby is GRANTED.
I. INTRODUCTION
On December 11, 2020, Ericsson filed a Complaint against Defendants Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Research America
(collectively, “Samsung”) alleging that Samsung breached its obligation to license its Standard
Essential Patents (“SEPs”) to Ericsson on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”)

45 4-2 Page: 2 Page
Filed 01/11/21 Filed:201/26/2021
of 16 PageID #: 1428(16 of 63)
terms in accordance with the obligation Samsung made to the European Telecommunications
Standards Institute (“ETSI”), a standard development organization (“SDO”). (Dkt. No. 1).
Ericsson and Samsung develop and manufacture cellular technology and have substantial
global patent portfolios. (Dkt. No. 11 at 2). Many of both Ericsson’s and Samsung’s patents are
SEPs for the 2G, 3G, 4G, and 5G cellular standards. (Id.). In the past, Samsung and Ericsson have
entered into global patent licenses, most recently in 2014 a cross-license to reciprocally use their
SEPs. (Id. at 2–3). The 2014 agreement called for its expiration at the end of 2020. (Dkt. No. 43
at 32:22). Accordingly, over the past year the parties have negotiated terms of a renewed global
cross-license. (Dkt. No. 11 at 3; Dkt. No. 26 at 3). Despite their efforts, the parties were unable to
come to an agreement as the end of 2020 approached. (Dkt. No. 11 at 3; Dkt. No. 26 at 3). In light
of the parties’ lack of an agreement, on December 7, 20201 Samsung2 filed a Civil Complaint in
the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court of Hubei Province (the “Chinese Action”) asking that
court to:
1. Determine the global licensing terms, including the royalty rates applicable
for [Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd., and
Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd.’s] communication products in
accordance with “Fair, Reasonable and Non-discriminatory” (“FRAND”)
principle for the licensing of all the 4G and 5G standard essential patents
(“SEPs”) held or controlled by [Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson] and its
affiliates;
2. Order [Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson] to bear the litigation costs and the
just and proper expenses incurred by [Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
(China) Investment Co., Ltd., and Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd.]
Wuhan Branch as a result of protecting its rights in these proceedings, which
tentatively calculated are RMB 10 million.3
1
Samsung alleges that it attempted to file its Complaint in China on December 4, 2020 but was unsuccessful. (Dkt.
No. 26 at 3). The Court will refer to the date the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court of Hubei Province accepted the
filing of Samsung’s China Complaint—December 7, 2020.
2
The Samsung entities here are different than those in the Chinese Action. However, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
is a party to both actions and is affiliated with every subsidiary in both actions. (Dkt. No. 26-2 at 5; Dkt. No. 17 at
5–6). As such, the Samsung parties in both the Chinese Action and this action are functionally the same. Huawei
Techs., Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 3:16-CV-02787-WHO, 2018 WL 1784065, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2018).
3
This quote, and all other quotes from all documents originally filed in China, are from certified English translations
of such filings. (Dkt. No. 26-2).
2
45 4-2 Page: 3 Page
Filed 01/11/21 Filed:301/26/2021
of 16 PageID #: 1429(17 of 63)
(Dkt. No. 26 at 3; Dkt. No. 26-2). No one provided notice to Ericsson of the Chinese Action when
it was filed. (Dkt. No. 11 at 4; Dkt. No 26 at 4). On December 11, 2020, a panel of judges or the
“collegiate panel” was assigned to preside over the Chinese Action. (Dkt. No. 26-10 at 7). Also on
December 11, 2020, Ericsson filed the Complaint in this case. (Dkt. No. 1). Unaware of the
Chinese Action, Ericsson notified Samsung of its Complaint in this Court that same day. (Dkt. No.
11 at 3; Dkt. No. 11-12 ¶ 4).
On December 14, 2020, Samsung filed a Behavior Preservation Application in the Wuhan
Intermediate People’s Court of Hubei Province (the “Wuhan Court”) requesting that court to issue
an anti-suit injunction (“ASI”) against Ericsson to prevent it from seeking relief relating to its 4G
and 5G SEPs anywhere else in the world. (Dkt. No. 30-4). Concurrently, Samsung filed an
Application for Delaying Serving the Behavior Preservation Application further requesting the
Wuhan Court to “hold the service of the relevant materials of the behavior preservation application
of this case and the various notification thereof until the ruling of the behavior preservation comes
into effect” based on the high probability that other courts, like this one, would likely take
affirmative action to impede enforcement of the ASI in their jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 30-2 at 2–3).
On December 17, 2020, Samsung notified Ericsson of the Chinese Action but did not
provide Ericsson with any of the filings from the Chinese Action.4 (Dkt. No. 11 at 4). On
December 21, 2020, Samsung again urged the Wuhan Court to issue an anti-suit injunction and to
do so within the week through a Supplemental Information from Samsung Regarding Act
Preservation Application. (Dkt. No. 26-11). On December 22, 2020, fifteen days after Samsung’s
Civil Complaint was filed, and over a week after Samsung sought the ASI, Samsung provided only
4
The proceedings in the Chinese Action are conducted solely through paper filings and not via electronic means. (Dkt.
No. 11 at 4; Dkt. No. 11-12 ¶ 7). Therefore, Ericsson was unable to access such filings unless and until they were
provided by Samsung or the Wuhan Court itself.
3
45 4-2 Page: 4 Page
Filed 01/11/21 Filed:401/26/2021
of 16 PageID #: 1430(18 of 63)
the Civil Complaint from the Chinese Action to Ericsson. (Dkt. No. 11-14). On December 23,
2020, Samsung provided the Wuhan Court with a Bank Certificate of Deposit and a Commitment
Letter for a bond of RMB 50 million to provide security for the anti-suit injunction. (Dkt. No. 26-
9 at 6). On December 25, 2020, the Wuhan Court issued an ASI enjoining Telefonaktiebolaget LM
Ericsson and its affiliates from:
(1) applying for any preliminary and permanent injunctive relief or administrative
measures before any courts, customs offices, or administrative enforcement
agencies either in China or other countries and regions or through any other
procedures against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung (China) Investment
Co., Ltd., Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd. Wuhan Branch and their affiliates,
and other subjects which manufacture, use, offer to sell, sell or import Samsung
telecommunications products, in terms of the 4G and 5G SEPs involved in this
Case, and the Respondent and its affiliates shall immediately withdraw or suspend
such claims that have already been filed;
(2) . . . applying for the enforcement of any preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief or administrative measures or that has been granted or is likely to be granted
by any courts, customs offices, or administrative enforcement agencies either in
China or any other countries and regions or through any other procedures against
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd., Samsung
(China) Investment Co., Ltd. Wuhan Branch and their affiliates, and other subjects
which manufacture, use, offer to sell, sell or import Samsung telecommunications
products, in terms of the 4G and 5G SEPs involved in this Case;
(3) . . . requesting any courts either in China or other countries and regions to
adjudicate the licensing terms (including the royalty rate) or royalty amount in
terms of the 4G and 5G SEPs involved in this Case and the Respondent and its
affiliates shall immediately withdraw or suspend such claims that have already been
filed;
(4) . . . initiating any legal proceedings requesting to determine whether the
Respondent and its affiliates have fulfilled their FRAND obligations in terms of the
present negotiations for licensing the 4G and 5G SEPs involved in this Case before
any courts either in China or other countries and regions, and the Respondent and
its affiliates shall immediately withdraw or suspend such claims that have already
been filed;
(5) . . . requesting any courts either in China or other countries and regions to order
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd., and
Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd. Wuhan Branch to withdraw this application
for behavior preservation or to prevent Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
(China) Investment Co., Ltd., and Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd. Wuhan
Branch from applying for the enforcement of the behavior preservation ruling
issued by this Court, and the Respondent and its affiliates shall immediately
4
45 4-2 Page: 5 Page
Filed 01/11/21 Filed:501/26/2021
of 16 PageID #: 1431(19 of 63)
withdraw or suspend such claims that are likely to be filed or have already been
filed.
(Id. at 12–14). The ASI is in effect for the duration of the Chinese Action and until a future
judgment in that Action becomes effective. (Id.). If Ericsson violates the ASI the Wuhan Court
states that it will “punish such violations in accordance with Chapter 10 of Civil Procedure Law
of the People’s Republic of China,” which includes the levying of substantial fines. (Id. at 14
(italics in original)). In accordance with Samsung’s request, the Wuhan Court gave Ericsson notice
of the ASI after the ASI had issued. (Dkt. Nos. 11-1 ¶ 7, 11-8). Ericsson received such notice on
December 25, 2020. (Dkt. No. 11-8).
On December 28, 2020, Ericsson came to this Court and requested an emergency ex parte
temporary restraining order to prevent Samsung from interfering with this action or attempting to
prevent Ericsson from asserting the full scope of its patent rights in the United States until the
Court could hear argument on whether a preliminary injunction should issue. (Dkt. No. 11). At
10:00 a.m. on December 28, 2020, the Court granted Ericsson’s Motion, issued a temporary
restraining order, and set the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction for hearing on January 7, 2021.
(Dkt. No. 14).5
II. LEGAL STANDARD
It is well established that a federal court is empowered to issue injunctions to protect its
jurisdiction. MWK Recruiting Inc. v. Jowers, No. 19-51064, 2020 WL 6572570, at *2 (5th Cir.
Nov. 6, 2020) (citing Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corp., 76 F.3d 624, 626 (5th Cir. 1996)). 6 A foreign
5
Subsequently, on January 1, 2021, Ericsson filed its Amended Complaint asserting patent infringement of eight U.S.
Patents. (Dkt. No. 17).
6
Pursuant to Ericsson’s Amended Complaint, this is now a case for both breach of contract and patent infringement.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases arising under
the patent laws. 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a). However, for issues not unique to patent law, like the preliminary injunction
requested here, the Federal Circuit applies the law of the regional circuit in which the appeal would otherwise lie.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Genentech, Inc., 716 F.3d 586, 590 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (internal citations omitted).
5
45 4-2 Page: 6 Page
Filed 01/11/21 Filed:601/26/2021
of 16 PageID #: 1432(20 of 63)
anti-suit injunction is a special application of the general preliminary injunction rules, but “the
suitability of such relief ultimately depends on considerations unique to anti-suit injunctions.” Id.
(quoting Kahara Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 335
F.3d 357, 364 (5th Cir. 2003)). The Fifth Circuit has adopted a test—often referred to as the
Unterweser factors—that weigh “the need to ‘prevent vexatious or oppressive litigation’ and to
‘protect the court's jurisdiction’ against the need to defer to principles of international comity.” Id.
(citing Kaepa, 76 F.3d at 627, and MacPhail v. Oceaneering Int’l, Inc., 302 F.3d 274, 277 (5th
Cir. 2002)). Pursuant to the Unterweser factors, an injunction against the prosecution of a foreign
lawsuit may be appropriate when the foreign litigation would: (1) frustrate a policy of the forum
issuing the injunction; (2) be vexatious or oppressive; (3) threaten the issuing court’s in rem or
quasi in rem jurisdiction; or (4) cause prejudice or offend other equitable principles. Id. (citing
Kaepa, 76 F.3d at 627 n.9 and In re Unterweser Reederei, GmbH, 428 F.2d 888, 890 (5th Cir.
1970)). In applying this test, the Fifth Circuit has rejected the approach taken by some other
Circuits, which “elevates principles of international comity to the virtual exclusion of all other
considerations.” Id. (citing Kaepa, 76 F.3d at 627). Rather, the Fifth Circuit has noted that the
“notions of comity do not wholly dominate the analysis to the exclusion of these other concerns.”
Id. (citing Kahara Bodas, 335 F.3d at 366) (alteration omitted).
To determine whether proceedings in another forum constitute “vexatious or oppressive”
litigation that threatens the court’s jurisdiction, the domestic court considers the following
interrelated factors: (1) the inequitable hardship resulting from the foreign suit; (2) the foreign
suit’s ability to frustrate and delay the speedy and efficient determination of the cause; and (3) the
extent to which the foreign suit is duplicative of the litigation in the United States. Id. (citing
Kaepa, 76 F.3d at 627). “[T]he duplicative factor is about legal, not factual, similarity.” Id. at *4
6
45 4-2 Page: 7 Page
Filed 01/11/21 Filed:701/26/2021
of 16 PageID #: 1433(21 of 63)
(emphasis in original). Suits are duplicative “where they involve the same or similar legal bases or
identical claims.” Id. (internal citations omitted).
As noted above, Ericsson is not seeking an anti-suit injunction to prevent the Chinese
Action from proceeding. Rather, Ericsson is seeking an anti-anti-suit injunction (sometimes called
an anti-interference injunction) to prevent Samsung from attempting to enforce the ASI and
thereby interfering with this Court’s exercise of its own jurisdiction. To this Court’s knowledge,
the Fifth Circuit has not provided guidance on the application of the Unterweser factors under
these particular circumstances. Thus, while the test set forth above relates to the issuance of an
anti-suit injunction, rather than an anti-interference injunction, it is nevertheless instructive and
will be applied here. See Teck Metals Ltd. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. CV-
05-411-LRS, 2009 WL 4716037, at *3 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 8, 2009).
III. DISCUSSION
1. Standing
As an initial matter, Samsung alleges that Ericsson, Inc. does not have standing to seek
relief on behalf of Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson because Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson is
the defendant in the Chinese Action and is the only entity that would be fined as a result of the
ASI. (Dkt. No. 26 at 15; Dkt. No. 37 at 13). Accordingly, Samsung argues there is no risk of
irreparable harm to Ericsson, Inc. (Dkt. No. 26 at 15; Dkt. No. 37 at 13); see Voda v. Cordis Corp.,
536 F.3d 1311, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008). During the hearing on the Motion, counsel for Ericsson
confirmed that the Motion and the requested anti-interference injunction are sought on behalf of
both Ericsson, Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. (Dkt. No. 43 at 9:9–12). Accordingly,
this Court finds that Ericsson, Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson have standing to seek the
requested relief.
7
45 4-2 Page: 8 Page
Filed 01/11/21 Filed:801/26/2021
of 16 PageID #: 1434(22 of 63)
2. Unterweser Factors
a. Frustration of a Policy of the Forum Issuing the Injunction
The public interest strongly supports this Court’s continued exercise of its jurisdiction.
Allowing Samsung to enjoin Ericsson from asking this Court to adjudicate legally cognizable
claims under United States law would frustrate this Court’s compelling interest in ensuring that
litigation within its legitimate jurisdiction proceed in this forum. Samsung argues that the ASI was
a legitimate exercise of the Wuhan Court’s jurisdiction as the first-filed action between Samsung
and Ericsson for their worldwide rate dispute. (Dkt. No. 26 at 7). The order in which the suits were
filed is not dispositive, and the issues before this Court and the issues before the Wuhan Court are
different. See Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 696 F.3d 872, 887 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that the
order in which the foreign and domestic suits are filed is not dispositive). Accordingly, both Courts
can properly exercise jurisdiction over the respective causes of action brought before them. The
purpose of an Article III Court is to be an impartial adjudicator of cases and controversies within
its lawfully conferred jurisdiction. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. To enforce the ASI in this case would
frustrate the “virtually unflagging obligation of the federal courts to exercise the jurisdiction given
them.” Colorado River Water Conserv. Dist. v. U.S., 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976).
b. Vexatious or Oppressive
In the context of an anti-suit injunction, the Court analyzes whether the foreign litigation
would be vexatious or oppressive. MWK, 2020 WL 6572570, at *2. However, here a dispute exists
as to whether in the context of an anti-interference injunction the litigation should be analyzed
from the posture of this Court or the foreign court. There appears to be no direct Fifth Circuit
guidance on this issue. Accordingly, the Court will address whether both litigations are vexatious
or oppressive from the posture of both jurisdictions under the factors set forth in MWK and Kaepa.
8
45 4-2 Page: 9 Page
Filed 01/11/21 Filed:901/26/2021
of 16 PageID #: 1435(23 of 63)
Id. (citing Kaepa, 76 F.3d at 627). Under either analysis, the Court finds that this factor supports
the issuance of an anti-interference injunction.
i. Inequitable Hardship Resulting from the Foreign Suit
Proceeding to enforce the ASI will impose an inequitable hardship on Ericsson because it
will unfairly deprive Ericsson of the right to bring claims it is entitled to bring under United States
law. Furthermore, the ASI was entered with no notice to Ericsson at the request of Samsung. (Dkt.
No. 30-2). Without notice or an opportunity to be heard, Ericsson found itself enjoined from
exercising its right to enforce legitimate causes of action under United States law pertaining to its
4G and 5G SEPs in the United States. The ASI imposes an inequitable hardship on Ericsson
because the ASI’s sweeping provisions deprive Ericsson of the right to attempt to obtain redress
for claims it has the right to bring under the laws of the United States.
Samsung argues that the process for obtaining the ASI is no different than the process this
Court used in issuing the ex parte temporary restraining order. It is not. Obtaining the ASI as
Samsung did is more akin to issuing an ex parte preliminary injunction, not a temporary restraining
order. A temporary restraining order, such as in this case, typically lasts fourteen days at most. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2). The ASI lasts through the ultimate conclusion of the Chinese Action,
which could be years from now. (Dkt. No. 26-9 at 12–14). Additionally, before this Opinion and
Preliminary Injunction was issued, Samsung had the opportunity to file multiple briefs and present
oral argument for this Court to consider. (Dkt. Nos. 26, 34, 37, 43). Notably, the ASI is only
dissolved if the respondent, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, prevails on a motion to reconsider
filed within five days in the Wuhan Court, completely shifting the burden to the responding party.
See (Dkt. No. 26-9 at 14). In contrast, this Court’s temporary restraining order is dissolved
automatically unless Ericsson, as the petitioner, meets its burden and prevails in a motion for
9
45 4-2 Page: 10 Page
Filed 01/11/21 Filed:
1001/26/2021
of 16 PageID #: 1436(24 of 63)
preliminary injunction. Regardless of whether the procedure Samsung followed comported with
Chinese law, Ericsson had none of the opportunities afforded to Samsung, and as a result would—
but for this Court’s preliminary injunction—be excluded from bringing causes of action in this
forum where both parties have a significant presence. (Dkt. No. 11 at 1). Additionally, not only
would enforcement of the ASI impede Ericsson’s ability to bring lawful causes of action, it would
unfairly but necessarily put Ericsson in a weaker negotiating position when it comes to cross
licensing its 4G and 5G SEPs to both Samsung and others. Ericsson argues this was the real
motivation behind the ASI. (Dkt. No. 11 at 2). This Court does not disagree.
Conversely, Samsung will not suffer inequitable hardship if litigation proceeds in both
courts. In fact, Samsung’s counsel agreed on the record in this Court that parallel actions are
inevitable. (Dkt. No. 43 at 36:4–10). The United States is both Ericsson’s and Samsung’s largest
market, and both Ericsson and Samsung have large offices, including relevant personnel involved
in these licensing discussions, in the Eastern District of Texas. (Dkt. No. 11 at 1). When asked if
this action was vexatious or oppressive to it, Samsung readily admitted it was not. (Dkt. No. 43 at
76:18–21). Accordingly, the Court finds that Ericsson would suffer inequitable hardship due to the
enforcement of the ASI, while Samsung would not suffer inequitable hardship if this case is
allowed to proceed.
ii. The Foreign Suit’s Ability to Frustrate and Delay the Speedy and Efficient
Determination of the Cause
If unaddressed, the ASI7 would frustrate and delay the speedy and efficient determination
of legitimate causes of action before this Court. In fact, the ASI specifically prohibits their
7
The Court analyzes the enforcement of the ASI because Ericsson seeks only to enjoin the enforcement of the ASI,
not the entire Chinese Action.
10
1101/26/2021
of 16 PageID #: 1437(25 of 63)
adjudication.8 Samsung furnished Ericsson’s Complaint to the Wuhan Court and specifically asked
for an injunction preventing this case from moving forward. (Dkt. Nos. 30-2, 30-3). If the ASI is
given its full effect, it would lay claim to causes of action properly raised in this Court and not
raised in the Chinese Action.
On the other hand, the causes of action here have no implication on the speedy and efficient
determination of the issues raised before the Wuhan Court. The Wuhan Court can continue to
adjudicate the claims that Samsung has brought before it, pursuant to its laws and its rules of civil
procedure. This Court does not intend—nor does it wish—to frustrate or delay the speedy and
efficient determination of the case brought in Wuhan. Without hesitation this Court equally insists
that it be permitted to adjudicate the issues raised here pursuant to its own legitimate jurisdiction
and without interference.
iii. The Extent to Which the Foreign Suit and the Domestic Suit are Duplicative
The Chinese Action and this suit are not duplicative. As the Fifth Circuit has recently
clarified, “the duplicative factor is about legal, not factual, similarity.” MWK, 2020 WL 6572570
at *4 (emphasis in original). Suits are duplicative “where they involve the same or similar legal
bases or identical claims.” Id. (internal citations omitted). The Chinese Action and this suit may
be factually similar but involve very separate legal questions.9 Samsung asks the Wuhan Court to
determine the global licensing terms, including the FRAND royalty rates applicable for Samsung’s
communication products implementing all of Ericsson’s 4G and 5G SEPs. Ericsson, on the other
hand, asks this Court to look at the parties’ pre-suit negotiation conduct and determine whether the
8
Samsung notes that not all causes of action before this Court are enjoined by the ASI. (Dkt. No. 43 at 78:2–7). While
that may be true, the inability for this Court to hear one or many causes of action equally offends the efficient
adjudication of such issues. Ericsson has a right to join “as many claims as it has” in one action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a).
9
By recognizing that these two questions are not one and the same, this Court is not commenting on whether it would
or would not be ultimately willing to set a global FRAND rate. The question of whether a global FRAND rate should
be set is not now before this Court.
11
1201/26/2021
of 16 PageID #: 1438(26 of 63)
parties breached or complied with their mutual FRAND obligations. The Wuhan Court is asked to
provide a number. This Court is asked to evaluate conduct. The legal questions presented to each
Court are different.10
c. Threaten the Issuing Court’s In Rem or Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction
This factor is not applicable. Although Ericsson brings claims for patent infringement and
breach of contract, Samsung acknowledges the only claims within the scope of the ASI are
Ericsson’s breach of contract claims. (Dkt. No. 43 at 78:8–11). Breach of contract claims are in
personam actions. See Page v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 4:13-CV-407-Y, 2013 WL
12198405, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2013). As such, this factor is not implicated.
d. Cause Prejudice or Offend Other Equitable Principles
Issuance of an anti-interference injunction in this case will not cause prejudice to Samsung
or offend other equitable principles. Through the ASI, Samsung attempts to prevent Ericsson from
seeking injunctive relief relating to its 4G and 5G SEPs in any tribunal in the world except in the
Wuhan Court. (Dkt. No. 26-9 at 12–13). However, on January 7, 2021, Samsung filed a Complaint
in the United States International Trade Commission seeking injunctive relief against Ericsson for
Ericsson’s 4G and 5G compliant products based on alleged infringement of Samsung’s 4G and 5G
SEPs—seeking the very type of injunctive relief the ASI bars Ericsson from seeking. See Certain
Wireless Communications Equipment and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-3522 (Jan. 7,
10
In fact, Ericsson argues that its FRAND obligation is subject to the express condition that Samsung grant a reciprocal
license. (Dkt. No. 30 at 7). Therefore, Ericsson argues, the unilateral relief Samsung seeks in the Chinese Action may
or may not be available. (Id.). Regardless of how this issue plays out on the merits, it demonstrates that it is far from
certain that the question posed to the Wuhan Court will impact or interfere with the issues presented here. The Court
does not currently express an opinion regarding whether any judgment from the Chinese Action would have a res
judicata effect. To the extent, however, the Wuhan Court provides a global FRAND rate for Ericsson’s 4G and 5G
SEPs in isolation, such a rate is unlikely to obviate this Court’s FRAND determinations because the causes of action
here require this Court to consider offers and negotiations for a cross-license in which Samsung would make a
balancing payment that inherently accounts for the value of its own 4G and 5G SEPs and not solely the value of
Ericsson’s 4G and 5G SEPs.
12
1301/26/2021
of 16 PageID #: 1439(27 of 63)
2021). If Samsung can seek redress of its claims through injunctive relief in the United States, it
would be the height of inequity (and hypocrisy) to allow the ASI to tie Ericsson’s hands from
doing the same.
Additionally, the Court is persuaded that the financially significant penal provisions of the
ASI create an inequitable disparity between the parties which prejudices Ericsson’s right to assert
lawful causes of action. Drawing from the well of its inherent authority, this Court should not
allow Samsung to impose financial penalties against Ericsson for attempting to file the same claims
that Samsung itself has filed without a counterbalance. The issues present before this Court, the
Wuhan Court, the United States International Trade Commission, and elsewhere should be
resolved on the merits and not based on unfair economic leverage gained through litigious
gamesmanship. Equity demands no less.
Furthermore, international comity is not offended by the issuance of an anti-interference
injunction which seeks to preserve the ability for litigation to proceed in parallel. Laker Airways
Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines, 731 F.2d 909, 926–27 (D.C. Cir. 1984). No international
public policy or issue is implicated by this case: Ericsson and Samsung are private parties engaged
in a global commercial struggle. Kaepa, 76 F.3d at 627. This Court is not instructing Samsung that
it cannot continue to prosecute its claims in the Wuhan Court nor is this Court seeking to enjoin
the furtherance of that proceeding. This Court believes it must act for the targeted purpose of
allowing both suits to proceed without interference. Under these circumstances, this Court finds
that an anti-interference injunction in no way threatens notions of international comity.
3. Ericsson’s Requested Relief
Although, under the Unterweser factors, an anti-interference injunction is warranted in this
case, the Court finds that some aspects of Ericsson’s requested relief is too broad. Injunctive relief
13
1401/26/2021
of 16 PageID #: 1440(28 of 63)
is an extraordinary remedy that should be narrowly tailored to prevent irreparable harm. MWK,
2020 WL 6572570, at *2. Ericsson requests that this Court issue a preliminary anti-interference
injunction ordering Samsung to: (1) not take actions in the Chinese Action that would interfere
with this Court’s jurisdiction over this matter; (2) not take actions in the Chinese Action that would
deprive Ericsson, Inc. and all of its corporate parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates of its right to
assert the full scope of its U.S. patent rights; (3) promptly send documents filed in the Chinese
Action to Ericsson; and (4) withdraw the ASI as to the U.S., or indemnify Ericsson against any
fines levied against Ericsson due to the ASI, or bar Samsung from participating any further in the
Chinese Action unless and until any fine related to the ASI is lifted.
As this Court has previously stated, this Court does not seek to insert itself into matters of
Chinese law or civil procedure, but simply to preserve its jurisdiction over the causes of action
properly before it. Accordingly, the Court declines to order Samsung to withdraw the ASI, bar
Samsung from participating in the Chinese Action, or require Samsung to promptly send
documents filed in the Chinese Action to Ericsson. Although this Court maintains a public docket
equally accessible by electronic means to both parties and the public, it is not for this Court to
require Samsung to operate in a foreign jurisdiction as though it were here. Furthermore, this Court
will not order Samsung to make any formal motion in the Chinese Action or seek to interfere with
it participating therein. That said, this Court affirmatively finds that a tailored indemnification
provision will adequately address this Court’s concern that Samsung may seek the imposition of
substantial fines in the Chinese Action for the purpose of creating economic leverage against
Ericsson to achieve practically what it may not be able to obtain legally. This Court finds that a
narrowly focused indemnification provision will ensure that both proceedings can progress on the
merits without the risk of unbalanced economic pressure being imposed by one party on another.
14
1501/26/2021
of 16 PageID #: 1441(29 of 63)
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, effective 10:00 a.m. CT, January 11, 2021 and
until the judgment of this Court is final, the Court hereby ORDERS AND ENJOINS Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Research America to:
(1) Take no action in the Chinese Action that would interfere with this Court’s jurisdiction to
determine whether Ericsson11 or Samsung have met or breached their FRAND obligations
as they relate to both Ericsson and Samsung’s 4G and 5G SEPs, or that would interfere
with any other cause of action before this Court;
(2) Take no action in the Chinese Action that would deprive Ericsson or all of its corporate
parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates of their rights to assert the full scope of their U.S. patent
rights before any Article III Court, customs office, or administrative agency in the United
States; and
(3) Jointly and severally indemnify Ericsson from and against any and all fines or other penal
assessments levied against and actually incurred by Ericsson pursuant to the enforcement
of the ASI, either on the motion of Samsung, sua sponte by the Wuhan Court, or otherwise,
as such pertains, and only as such pertains, to actions Ericsson has taken or takes in the
future in the United States to lawfully litigate or adjudicate claims relating to the 4G and
5G SEPs identified or involved in this case.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c), the Court finds that the proper amount of security for this
anti-interference injunction is Zero United States Dollars ($0). See Kaepa, 76 F.3d at 628.
11
Ericsson was previously defined as Ericsson, Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. See infra at 1.
15
1601/26/2021
of 16 PageID #: 1442(30 of 63)
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 11th day of January, 2021.
____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
144-3
FiledPage: 1 Filed:
12/28/20 Page01/26/2021
1 of 4 PageID #: 253 (31 of 63)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
ERICSSON INC., §
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM §
ERICSSON, §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-00380-JRG
§
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., §
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, §
INC., SAMSUNG RESEARCH AMERICA, §
§
Defendants. §
ORDER GRANTING EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER AND ANTI-INTERFERENCE INJUNCTION RELATED TO
SAMSUNG’S LAWSUIT FILED IN THE WUHAN INTERMEDIATE PEOPLE’S
COURT OF CHINA
The Court has considered the submissions presented in connection with Plaintiff Ericsson
Inc.’s (“Ericsson”) Emergency Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Anti-
Interference Injunction Related to Samsung’s Lawsuit Filed in the Wuhan Intermediate People’s
Court of China (the “Wuhan Action”). Having considered the matter, the Court finds good cause
exists to temporarily restrain Defendants as requested in Ericsson’s application. The Court finds
that the status quo should be maintained pending the Court’s evaluation of, and ruling on, a
preliminary injunction. The Court finds a substantial risk of irreparable harm to Ericsson, and to
the jurisdiction of this Court, if Samsung were to attempt to enforce or further pursue its antisuit
injunction against Ericsson. In contrast, the harm to Samsung of maintaining the status quo is
negligible.
144-3
FiledPage: 2 Filed:
12/28/20 Page01/26/2021
2 of 4 PageID #: 254 (32 of 63)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT, effective immediately, Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Research America (collectively,
“Samsung”), and all of their affiliates, officers, directors, shareholders, and employees, or those in
active concert with them, shall refrain from any of the following acts until further order of this
Court:
A. Make any request, claim, application, or motion further pursuing or enforcing an injunction
from a foreign court—including but not limited to the Intermediate People’s Court of
Wuhan Municipality, Hubei Province, China—which would prohibit, deter, impose
monetary fines on, or otherwise limit in any way Ericsson Inc.’s, and all of its corporate
parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, ability to fully and completely prosecute this action,
request and enforce relief, or which would impair this Court’s ability to adjudicate any and
all matters in this lawsuit;
B. Make any request, claim, application, or motion further pursuing or enforcing an injunction
from a foreign court—including but not limited to the Intermediate People’s Court of
Wuhan Municipality, Hubei Province, China—which would prohibit or otherwise limit in
any way Ericsson Inc.’s, and all of its corporate parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, ability
to file suits or administrative actions to enforce or defend its United States patent rights.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Research America shall (1) jointly and severally
indemnify, within five business days, Ericsson Inc.’s, and all of its corporate parents, subsidiaries,
and affiliates, for any fines imposed by the Intermediate People’s Court of Wuhan Municipality,
Hubei Province, China related to the Wuhan court’s order of December 25, 2020, or any other
orders that in any way contravene the prohibitions on Samsung contained in this Order; (2) send
2
144-3
FiledPage: 3 Filed:
12/28/20 Page01/26/2021
3 of 4 PageID #: 255 (33 of 63)
to Ericsson, within 24 hours of this Order, by email a copy of all filings made or received in the
Wuhan Action; and (3) promptly send to Ericsson, by email, a copy of all future filings made or
received in the Wuhan Action.
This Order is issued without notice because Defendants are yet to appear in this case and
because the emergency relief Ericsson requests is highly time sensitive. Accordingly,
Ericsson, or its authorized agents, are ORDERED to promptly provide actual notice, by
emailing a copy of this Order and all papers upon which this Order is based to two
Samsung Intellectual Property Licensing employees who have directly interfaced with
Ericsson’s license negotiators regarding the Wuhan Action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Defendants shall respond to Ericsson’s request for
a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants, pending the final hearing and determination of this
action, from such activities as is described in the paragraphs above and as Defendants have been
temporarily enjoined from. The Court establishes the following briefing schedule for consideration
of Ericsson’s preliminary injunction request:
1. The Court will consider Ericsson’s motion for temporary restraining order as also
constituting its motion for preliminary injunction.
2. Defendants shall have until 5:00 p.m. CT on January 1st, 2021 to file with this Court and
serve on Ericsson’s counsel any Opposition to the Continuation of the Temporary
Restraining Order or Conversion to Preliminary Injunction. Defendants Opposition will be
limited to 15 pages, exclusive of evidence.
3. Ericsson will have until 5:00 p.m. CT on January 5th, 2021 to serve a Reply. Ericsson’s
Reply will be limited to 15 pages, exclusive of evidence.
3
144-3
FiledPage: 4 Filed:
12/28/20 Page01/26/2021
4 of 4 PageID #: 256 (34 of 63)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a preliminary injunction hearing is set for 9:00 a.m.
CT on January 7th, 2021 in Courtroom 106 of the Sam B. Hall, Jr. United States Courthouse in
Marshall, Texas.
Because Samsung is unlikely to suffer harm by continuing to be subject to the jurisdiction
of this Court and by maintaining the status quo, the Court finds that the proper amount of security
under Rule 65(c) is Zero United States Dollars ($0.00).
This Order shall expire on its own terms on January 11, 2021, unless further extended by
Order of this Court.
For good cause shown and upon written application to the Court, this Order may be
extended for a longer period determined by the Court.
So Ordered this
Dec 28, 2020
at 10:00 a.m. CT
4
26-94-4FiledPage: 1 Filed:
01/01/21 Page01/26/2021
1 of 29 PageID #: 478(35 of 63)
Exhibit 8
01/01/21 Page01/26/2021 (36 of 63)
2 of 29 PageID #: 479
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSLATION ACCURACY
I, Alex Jo, declare:
1. I am a professional reviewer and coordinator specializing in translating Chinese,

Japanese and Korean to English.
2. I have over 25 years of experience reviewing and coordinating translations of thousands

of technical, legal, and business documents from Chinese to English submitted to, among others,
various U.S. federal courts and the U.S. ITC.
3. I certify that the following Chinese to English translation of the corresponding source
document titled “Civil Ruling” is a true, correct, and complete translation to the best of my
knowledge and ability.
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed
th
this 30 day of December 2020 in the Contra Costa County of the State of California.
By:
Alex N. Jo
Member, ATA
1 / 14
01/01/21 Page01/26/2021 (37 of 63)
3 of 29 PageID #: 480
People's Republic of China

Wuhan Intermediate People's Court of Hubei Province
Civil Ruling
(2020) E 01 Zhi Min Chu 743
Applicants 1: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Address: 129 Samsung-Ro, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of

Korea
Legal Representative：KIM Ki Nam, Vice Chairman
Attorney: XIE Guanbin, Beijing Lifang & Partners Law Firm
Attorney: JIAO Shan, Beijing Lifang & Partners Law Firm
Applicants 2: Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd.
Address: 1001, 1002, 1003 No.15, 10F, Building 2, Guanghua Road, Chaoyang
District, Beijing, China
Legal Representative：CHOI Seung Sik, General Manager
Attorney: ZHOU Yigang, the Employee of Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd.
Applicants 3：Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd. Wuhan Branch
Address: Room 1901-B & 1902, 19/F, Wuhan Poly Culture Square, No.99
Zhongnan Road, Wuchang District, Wuhan, China
Person in charge：KIM Kye Hyeon, General Manager
Attorney: XIE Guanbin, Beijing Lifang & Partners Law Firm
Respondent: Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Address: SE-164 83 Stockholm, Sweden
Legal Representative: Börje Ekholm, CEO
2 / 14
01/01/21 Page01/26/2021 (38 of 63)
4 of 29 PageID #: 481
The standard essential patent (hereinafter referred to as “SEP”) royalty dispute

between Applicant 1, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as
“Samsung Electronics”), Applicant 2, Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as “Samsung China”) and Applicant 3, Samsung (China)
Investment Co., Ltd. Wuhan Branch (hereinafter referred to as “Samsung Wuhan
Branch”) and the Respondent, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (hereinafter referred
to as “this Case”), was accepted by Wuhan Intermediate People's Court of Hubei
Province (hereinafter referred to as “this Court”) on December 7, 2020.
On December 14, 2020, the Applicants filed the ASI application to this Court and
asked for: (1) For the duration of this Case and until the judgement of this Case becomes
effective, the Respondent and its affiliates are prohibited from applying for any
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief or administrative measures before any
courts, customs offices, or administrative enforcement agencies either in China or other
countries and regions or through any other procedures against the Applicants, their
affiliates, and other subjects which are involved in manufacturing, using, offering to
sell, selling or importing Samsung telecommunications products, in terms of the 4G
and 5G SEPs involved in this Case, and the Respondent and its affiliates should
immediately withdraw or suspend such claims that have already been filed; (2) For the
duration of this Case and until the judgement of this Case becomes effective, the
Respondent and its affiliates are prohibited from applying for the enforcement of any
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief or administrative measures or that has been
granted or is likely to be granted by any courts, customs offices, or administrative
enforcement agencies either in China or any other countries and regions or through any
other procedures against the Applicants, their affiliates, and other subjects which are
involved in manufacturing, using, offering to sell, selling or importing Samsung
telecommunications products, in terms of the 4G and 5G SEPs involved in this Case;
(3) For the duration of this Case and until the judgement of this Case becomes effective,
the Respondent and its affiliates are prohibited from requesting any courts either in
China or other countries and regions to adjudicate the licensing terms (including the
royalty rate) or royalty amount in terms of the 4G and 5G SEPs involved in this Case
and the Respondent and its affiliates should immediately withdraw or suspend such
claims that have already been filed; (4) For the duration of this Case and until the
judgement of this Case becomes effective, the Respondent and its affiliates are
prohibited from initiating any legal proceedings requesting to determine whether
3 / 14
01/01/21 Page01/26/2021 (39 of 63)
5 of 29 PageID #: 482
Ericsson and their affiliates have fulfilled their “ Fair, Reasonable and Non-
discriminatory” (hereinafter referred to as “FRAND”) obligations in terms of the
present negotiations for licensing the 4G and 5G SEPs involved in this Case before any
courts either in China or other countries and regions, and the Respondent and its
affiliates should withdraw or suspend such claims that have already been filed; (5) For
the duration of this Case and until the judgement of this Case becomes effective, the
Respondent and its affiliates are prohibited from requesting any courts either in China
or other countries and regions to order the Applicants and their affiliates to withdraw
this application for behavior preservation or to prevent the Applicants and their
affiliates from applying for the enforcement of the behavior preservation ruling issued
by this Court regarding the above prayer 1-4 according to the law, and the Respondent
and its affiliates should immediately withdraw or suspend such applications filed or to
be filed, if they have done so and immediately apply to rescind such rulings obtained
or to be obtained and be prohibited from enforcing such rulings.
The facts and grounds for filing the abovementioned application are: (1) Any
above-mentioned proceedings, once initiated by the Respondent, will severely affect
Applicants and their affiliates’ operation and cause unavoidable and irreparable damage
to them. Such proceedings will also pressure the Applicants to submit to unreasonable
royalty rates rather than maintaining this action. Therefore, it is necessary and urgent
to take behavior preservation measures. (2) A core dispute between the Applicants and
the Respondent is what amount the Applicants should pay as a royalty for the
Respondent’s global wireless communication SEPs. Since the Applicants have filed the
disputes with this Court and asked this Court to determine the relevant global licensing
terms (including royalty rates) according to the FRAND principle, the Respondent lacks
any ground to file for injunctive relief or file another rate setting case against the
Applicants. Accordingly, the behavior preservation would not unreasonably restrict
Respondent’s right to sue. (3) If the Respondent seeks injunctive relief or files other
rate setting cases before the courts either in China or in other countries and regions, or
applies to enforce the corresponding ruling or judgement thereof, it would impede the
trial of this Case and make it difficult to enforce the judgment of this Case. (4) Taking
behavior preservation measures by this Court would not undermine the international
comity principle. Before this Case was filed, the Respondent did not seek any injunctive
relief or file any rate setting case before other courts based on the same disputes. The
behavior preservation measures taken by this Court would not have improper impact
on the trial and judgement of other cases filed by the Respondent before the courts
4 / 14
01/01/21 Page01/26/2021 (40 of 63)
6 of 29 PageID #: 483
either in China or other countries and regions. (5) Taking behavior preservation
measures by this Court would not undermine the public interests. In contrast, if the
Respondent is not prohibited from filing for injunctive relief or filing rate setting cases,
the Applicants would be placed at a passive negotiation position and may be forced to
accept the Respondent’s unreasonable licensing terms, which will inevitably increase
the Applicants’ operating costs, reduce ability to participate in market competition, and
ultimately affect the interests of the general public as consumers due to cost shifting
and other factors.
On December 22, 2020, the Applicants sent Samsung’s Supplementary Statement

on the ASI Application to this Court and expressed the willingness of providing
securities for the ASI application. On December 23, 2020, Samsung China provided
this Court with the Bank Certificate of Deposit and the Commitment Letter of the
behavior preservation.
Upon reviewing, the preliminary evidence of this Case indicates that, Applicants
1, Samsung Electronics was established in 1969 and is headquartered in Suwon-si,
Gyeonggi-do. Samsung Electronics mainly conducts its business in the fields of
semiconductors, display devices, information and communications technology, and life
sciences. Applicant 2, Samsung China was established in 1996 in Beijing, China, and
its main business activity is to invest and manufacture and sell relevant products on
behalf of Samsung Electronics in China. Applicants 3, Samsung Wuhan Branch was
established in 2011 in Wuhan, China, as a branch of the headquarter of Samsung China
in Wuhan, and its mainly in charge of the sales-relevant activities of Samsung products
in Wuhan and surrounding areas. The Respondent was established in Stockholm,
Sweden in 1876. The Respondent is a provider of communications solutions and
professional services. The Respondent is a member of various wireless communications
standard-setting organizations (hereinafter referred to as “SSOs”) and has participated
in the development of 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G wireless communication standards. The
Respondent holds a large number of SEPs under the wireless communications
standards of GSM/GPRS/EDGE, WCDMA/HSPA, LTE and NR. The Respondent has
committed to SSOs such as ETSI, TIA, TTA, and ARIB that it will license its wireless
communications SEPs on FRAND terms. The Parties had entered into licensing
agreements on relevant 2G, 3G and 4G SEPs in 2007 and 2014 respectively, and the
licensing agreement signed in 2014 will expire at the end of 2020. In January 2020, the
Parties negotiated the licensing of 4G and 5G SEPs held or controlled by the
Respondent after the expiration of the licensing agreement signed in 2014. After
5 / 14
01/01/21 Page01/26/2021 (41 of 63)
7 of 29 PageID #: 484
multiple rounds of negotiation, the Parties failed to reach any licensing agreement on
4G and 5G SEPs and also failed to reach the agreement on submitting the disputes to a
third-party arbitration. Based on these facts, the Applicants filed the disputes before this
Court on December 7, 2020 and asked this Court to determine the global licensing terms,
including the royalty rates applicable for Applicants’ communication products in
accordance with FRAND principle for the licensing of all the 4G and 5G SEPs held or
controlled by the Respondent and its subsidiaries. After this Case was accepted, the
Respondent and its U.S. subsidiary sued Samsung Electronics and its U.S. subsidiaries
before the Eastern District of Texas in the United States and requested the U.S. court to
adjudge that the Respondent’s offer complies with FRAND, that the Respondent fully
complied with its FRAND commitment in its negotiations with the Applicants and that
the Respondent fully complied with the ETSI IPR Policy in all respects.
This Court is of the opinions that, this Case is a foreign-related intellectual

property contract dispute case, Applicants’ ASI application is a procedural matter,
which should be examined and adjudicated in accordance with the law of the place
where the court accepting the case sits, i.e., the law of People’s Republic of China.
According to the Article 100.1 of the Civil Procedure law of People’s Republic of
China (“CPL”), for cases in which the action of a party to the lawsuit or any other
reason causes difficulty in enforcement of a judgment or causes other harm to the
litigants, a People's Court may, pursuant to an application by a counterparty litigant,
rule on preservation of its property or order the counterparty to undertake certain acts
or prohibit the counterparty to undertake certain acts; where the litigants do not make
an application, a People's Court may rule that preservation measures be adopted where
necessary. The Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues concerning
the Application of Law in Reviewing the Behavior Preservation Cases in Intellectual
Property Disputes (“Provisions on Behavior Preservation”), which was implemented
with effect from January 1, 2019, also involve special provisions regarding the
examination and adjudication of the behavior preservation application in intellectual
property disputes. According to the above law and judicial interpretations, this Court
will examine the Applicants’ ASI application from the following aspects and decide
whether to take the preservation measures applied by them: (1) whether there may be a
situation in this Case where it is difficult to enforce the judgement of this Case due to
the Respondent’s conduct; (2) if the relevant preservation measures are not taken,
whether the legitimate interests of the Applicants will suffer irreparable harms; (3)
whether the harm to the Applicants without the relevant preservation measures exceeds
6 / 14
01/01/21 Page01/26/2021 (42 of 63)
8 of 29 PageID #: 485
the harm to the Respondent with such measures; (4) if the relevant preservation
measures are taken, whether the public interests and the international civil litigation
order will be harmed; (5) whether Applicants have provided proper security for the
preservation measures they applied for.
1. Whether there may be a situation in this Case where it is difficult to enforce the
judgement of this Case due to the Respondent’s conduct.
In terms of the claims filed by the Applicants in this Case, Applicants mainly ask
this Court to determine the global licensing terms, including the royalty rates,
applicable for Applicants’ communication products for the licensing of all the 4G and
5G SEPs held or controlled by the Respondent and its subsidiary. As of the filing date
of this Case, other than this Case, between the parties there is no other patent license
disputes case or patent infringement case filed concerning the 4G and 5G SEPs involved
in this Case. As to the situations where it is difficult to enforce the judgement of this
Case, this Court hereby analyses them respectively according to Applicants’ Prayers:
First, for Prayer 1 and Prayer 2 in Applicants’ ASI application. If Respondent or

its affiliates, during the adjudication of this Case, apply for any preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief or administrative measures before any courts, customs
offices, administrative enforcement agencies, etc. either in China or other countries and
regions against the Applicants, their affiliates, and other subjects which are involved in
manufacturing, using, offering to sell, selling or importing Samsung
telecommunications products, or apply for enforcement of the above injunctive relief
or administrative measures that has been granted or is likely to be granted, the ruling of
the relevant patent license terms in this Case will be affected by such preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief or administrative measures, and the Applicants will face the
risks of injunctive relieves or administrative measures even if they agree to pay royalties
for the 4G and 5G SEPs in accordance with the license terms determined by this Court.
As a result, it will render the enforcement of the judgement of the global licensing terms,
including the royalty rates, in this Case meaningless in the jurisdictions where such
injunctive relief and administrative measures are applied for or enforced. Therefore, the
Prayer 1 and Prayer 2 in Applicants’ ASI application are legitimate.
Second, for Prayer 3 and Prayer 4 in Applicants’ ASI application. If, during the
adjudication of this Case, Respondent requests any courts either in China or other
countries and regions to adjudicate the licensing terms or royalty amount in terms of
the 4G and 5G SEPs involved in this Case, or files for determination of whether
7 / 14
01/01/21 Page01/26/2021 (43 of 63)
9 of 29 PageID #: 486
Respondent has fulfilled its FRAND obligations in the negotiations, the scope of
adjudication and the judgement of this Case, which accepted first, will overlap or
conflict with the above later cases. As a result, the enforcement of the judgement of this
Case will be hindered. Therefore, the Prayer 3 and Prayer 4 in Applicants’ ASI
application are legitimate.
Third, for Prayer 5 in Applicants’ ASI application. In terms of Prayer 1-4 in

Applicants’ ASI application, if Respondent initiates AASI proceeding and requests any
courts either in China or other countries and regions to order the Applicants to withdraw
this ASI application or to prevent the Applicants from applying for the enforcement of
the relevant ASI application, the adjudication of this Case and the enforcement of the
judgment of this Case will be indirectly affected. Therefore, part of the Prayer 5 in
Applicants’ ASI application, which is relating to prohibit the Respondent and its
affiliates from requesting any courts to order the Applicants to withdraw this ASI
application or to prevent the Applicants from applying for the enforcement of the ASI
ruling regarding the Prayer 1-4, and the Respondent and its affiliates should
immediately withdraw or suspend such ASI applications filed or to be filed, is also
legitimate. As to the rest part of Prayer 5, which requests the Respondent and its
affiliates to immediately apply to rescind such rulings granted or to be granted and be
prohibited from enforcing such rulings, since this Court has recognized the legitimacy
of the Applicants’ prayer which requests this Court to prohibit the Respondent from
initiating AASI proceedings, in absence of evidence that the Respondent has obtained
such court rulings, this part of the Prayer 5 lacks basis and is not supported by this Court
at this stage.
2. If the relevant preservation measures are not taken, whether the legitimate
interests of the Applicants will suffer irreparable harms.
With respect to SEPs, this Court recognizes and respects the rights of SEP holders
and supports them in obtaining fair and reasonable royalty revenue from the relevant
technology implementers. At the same time, the technical solution of the patent will be
more widely used after it is incorporated into the technical standard due to the
compliance of others with the standard, and the patent holder will gain relatively more
royalty revenue and competitive advantage. Therefore, reasonable and necessary
restrictions should be imposed on the rights of SEP owners, especially the right to apply
for injunctive relief. In this Case, the Applicants are the licensees in the implementation
of the SEPs and the communication products they produce and sell may use the patents
8 / 14
26-94-4FiledPage: 10 Page
01/01/21 Filed: 10
01/26/2021 (44 of 63)
of 29 PageID #: 487
held by the Respondent. In the case that the two parties fail to reach a new license
agreement, if the Applicants continue to produce and sell the relevant communication
products, which may face the Respondent's lawsuit or other legal remedies. Especially
when the Respondent applies for any preliminary or permanent injunctions against the
Applicants’ products before any courts or seeks any administrative measures against
the Applicants’ products before any customs offices, or administrative enforcement
agencies, the applicant’s production and sales activities will be affected thereof. In
particular, the technical field involved in this Case is the communications field, in
which the relevant products have relatively short product cycles, and the technology
update iterations are rapid. The implementation of the injunctive measures will block
the sales of the Applicants’ products and may cause the Applicants’ market share to
shrink irreversibly, which will lead to the irreparable damage to the Applicants’ interests.
Therefore, when the Applicants have requested this Court to rule on the global licensing
terms of the relevant SEPs held by the Respondent, including the royalty rate, in
accordance with the FRAND principles, it is necessary to take corresponding behavior
preservation measures in response to the Applicants’ application.
3. Whether the damage caused to the Applicants by not taking behavior

preservation measures exceeds the damage caused to the Respondent by adopting
behavior preservation measures.
Judging from the bilateral relationship of the parties to the licensing of involved
SEPs, there is a common basis of interest between the two parties, that is, the licensee
obtains revenue through external sales of products, while the licensor has the right to
participate in the distribution of product revenues based on the technical dedication of
its SEPs to the relevant products. In the meantime, antagonisms may arise between the
two parties due to their disputes in the licensing terms for the relevant SEPs. When
judging whether to adopt the behavior preservation measures against SEP holders, the
interests of licensors and licensees should be considered in a balanced manner. In this
Case, for the Applicants, if the behavior preservation measures are not to be taken, their
production and sales activities will be adversely affected or even forced to be prohibited.
While for the Respondent, in case who is refrained from seeking preliminary
injunctions, permanent injunctions or administrative remedies against the products
produced and sold by the Applicants, although it will be restricted for exercising of its
patent rights to a certain extent, it will not lead to the fundamental loss of its rights. On
the contrary, after the Applicants requested this Court to adjudicate the licensing terms
of the relevant SEPs held by the Respondent in accordance with the FRAND principles,
9 / 14
01/01/21 Filed: 11
01/26/2021 (45 of 63)
of 29 PageID #: 488
prohibiting the Respondent from seeking preliminary injunctions, permanent

injunctions or administrative remedies will make the Applicants to be able to maintain
the normal production and sales of their products, without prejudice to the rights of the
Respondent to request the Applicants to pay the royalties and calculate the
corresponding loss. In fact, if the Applicants can maintain or even expand the
production and sales scale of the relevant products, the final royalties the Respondent
obtains from the Applicants may also increase accordingly. Therefore, in this Case, the
failure to adopt behavior preservation measures will have a greater impact on the
Applicants, while the adoption of behavior preservation measures will have a relatively
small impact on the Respondent. From the perspective of interest balance, the
Applicants’ application for behavior preservation should be supported as well.
4. Whether the adoption of behavior preservation measures will harm the public
interests and international civil litigation order.
As far as social public interests are concerned, taking the behavior preservation
measures in this Case will not harm the social public interests. From the consumers’
points of view, they can continue to have access to the communication products
produced and sold by the Applicants without encountering any sales prohibition or out-
of-stock situations regarding relevant products. On the contrary, if the behavior
preservation measures are not to be taken, the Applicants will still face the risk of being
prohibited from producing and selling relevant products even if the Applicants agree to
let this Court adjudicate the licensing terms of the involved SEPs, which will reduce
their participation in market competition and will eventually affect consumers’ interests
due to cost transfer and other factors.
As far as the impact on the international civil litigation order is concerned, this
Court is the first court to accept the royalty dispute between the Applicants and the
Respondent regarding the involved SEPs. When the Applicants proactively request this
Court to adjudicate the global licensing terms for 4G and 5G SEPs held or controlled
by the Respondent in terms of the Applicants’ communication products, the adoption
of behavioral preservation measures will help ensuring this Case proceeds smoothly
and the execution of the ruling. In this way, it will not only provide a solution for the
disputes that the two parties have failed to resolve after many rounds of negotiation, a
solution to resolve the parties’ disputes entirely, but also can eliminate the litigation
exhaustion and conflicts of jurisdiction arise from the parallel lawsuits potentially filed
by the Applicants and the Respondent in various countries to the maximum extent.
10 / 14
01/01/21 Filed: 12
01/26/2021 (46 of 63)
of 29 PageID #: 489
5. Whether the Applicants provide valid security for the behavior preservation
application.
According to the Article 11.1 of the Provisions on Behavior Preservation,

applicants who apply for behavior preservation shall provide security according to law.
In this Case, the Applicant Samsung China submitted a certificate of deposit of RMB
50 million to this Court and agreed this Court to freeze the deposit as a security for
behavior preservation. In addition, the Applicants made supplemental statement to this
Court that if this court approves its application for behavior preservation and the
Respondent is willing to comply, they are willing to increase the amount of security as
requested by the court. This Court opines that the security of RMB 50 million deposit
provided by the Applicants already can cover the initial losses that might be caused to
the Respondent by taking behavioral preservation measures. The supplemental
statement about the Applicants’ willingness to continue to add security during the
period of respondent’s compliance with the behavior preservation ruling also shows
that the Applicants have the goodwill to provide sufficient security for the Respondent’s
possible losses, and also shows the Applicants’ sincere willingness to resolve the parties’
disputes through this Case. This practice of continuously increasing the amount of
security during the period of the Respondent’s compliance with the behavior
preservation ruling constitutes a constraint on both parties and helps to urge both parties
to enter the substantive procedures of resolving disputes as soon as possible and
promote to settle the disputes in this Case as early as possible. Therefore, this Court
recognize the security provided by the Applicants for behavior preservation.
To sum up, in this Case, the failure to adopt the behavior preservation measures
will result in difficulties of enforcing the judgement and cause the irreparable damage
to the Applicant’s interests, while the adoption of behavior preservation measures will
not cause significant harm to the Respondent’s interests and the Applicants have already
provided effective security. Under such circumstances, the main application items for
behavior preservation requested by the Applicates should be approved. After the
collegiate panel’s deliberations, in accordance with Article 100, Article 102, and Item
4 of Article 154.1 of the CPL, the provisions of Article 3.1, Article 4, Article 7 and
Article 13 of the Provisions on Behavior Preservation, the ruling are as follows:
1. For the duration of this Case and until the judgement of this Case becomes
effective, the Respondent and its affiliates are prohibited from applying for any
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief or administrative measures before any
11 / 14
01/01/21 Filed: 13
01/26/2021 (47 of 63)
of 29 PageID #: 490
courts, customs offices, or administrative enforcement agencies either in China or other

countries and regions or through any other procedures against Samsung Electronics Co.,
Ltd., Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd., Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd.
Wuhan Branch and their affiliates, and other subjects which manufacture, use, offer to
sell, sell or import Samsung telecommunications products, in terms of the 4G and 5G
SEPs involved in this Case, and the Respondent and its affiliates shall immediately
withdraw or suspend such claims that have already been filed;
effective, the Respondent and its affiliates are prohibited from applying for the
enforcement of any preliminary and permanent injunctive relief or administrative
measures or that has been granted or is likely to be granted by any courts, customs
offices, or administrative enforcement agencies either in China or any other countries
and regions or through any other procedures against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd., Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd. Wuhan
Branch and their affiliates, and other subjects which manufacture, use, offer to sell, sell
or import Samsung telecommunications products, in terms of the 4G and 5G SEPs
involved in this Case;
effective, the Respondent and its affiliates are prohibited from requesting any courts
either in China or other countries and regions to adjudicate the licensing terms
(including the royalty rate) or royalty amount in terms of the 4G and 5G SEPs involved
in this Case and the Respondent and its affiliates shall immediately withdraw or suspend
such claims that have already been filed;
effective, the Respondent and its affiliates are prohibited from initiating any legal
proceedings requesting to determine whether the Respondent and its affiliates have
fulfilled their FRAND obligations in terms of the present negotiations for licensing the
4G and 5G SEPs involved in this Case before any courts either in China or other
countries and regions, and the Respondent and its affiliates shall immediately withdraw
or suspend such claims that have already been filed;
effective, the Respondent and its affiliates are prohibited from requesting any courts
either in China or other countries and regions to order Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd., and Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd.
12 / 14
01/01/21 Filed: 14
01/26/2021 (48 of 63)
of 29 PageID #: 491
Wuhan Branch to withdraw this application for behavior preservation or to prevent

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd., and Samsung
(China) Investment Co., Ltd. Wuhan Branch from applying for the enforcement of the
behavior preservation ruling issued by this Court, and the Respondent and its affiliates
shall immediately withdraw or suspend such claims that are likely to be filed or have
already been filed;
6. Freezing the security deposit, RMB 50,000,000 yuan, provided by Samsung

(China) Investment Co., Ltd. for the ASI application in this Case;
7. Rejecting other requests claimed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung

(China) Investment Co., Ltd., and Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd. Wuhan
Branch.
If the Respondent violates this ruling, this Court will punish such violations in
accordance with Chapter 10 of Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.
The application fee of this behavior preservation application is RMB 5,000 yuan
and shall be undertaken by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung (China)
Investment Co., Ltd., and Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd. Wuhan Branch.
This ruling shall be forthwith enforced.
The Applicants or the Respondent who disagrees with this ruling may apply for
reconsideration once within five days upon receipt of this ruling, and the enforcement
of this ruling shall not be suspended during the reconsideration period.
Chief Judge YIN Wei
Judge XU Jixue
Judge ZHAO Qianxi
Judge JIANG Maijun
Judge ZHOU Shubo
13 / 14
01/01/21 Filed: 15
01/26/2021 (49 of 63)
of 29 PageID #: 492
December 25, 2020
Law Clerk ZHONG Yawei
Secretary TONG Xiaoxue
Secretary ZHAO Danting
14 / 14
01/01/21 Filed: 16
01/26/2021
of 29(50 of 63)#: 493
PageID
01/01/21 Filed: 17
01/26/2021
of 29(51 of 63)#: 494
PageID
01/01/21 Filed: 18
01/26/2021
of 29(52 of 63)#: 495
PageID
01/01/21 Filed: 19
01/26/2021
of 29(53 of 63)#: 496
PageID
01/01/21 Filed: 20
01/26/2021
of 29(54 of 63)#: 497
PageID
01/01/21 Filed: 21
01/26/2021
of 29(55 of 63)#: 498
PageID
01/01/21 Filed: 22
01/26/2021
of 29(56 of 63)#: 499
PageID
01/01/21 Filed: 23
01/26/2021
of 29(57 of 63)#: 500
PageID
01/01/21 Filed: 24
01/26/2021
of 29(58 of 63)#: 501
PageID
01/01/21 Filed: 25
01/26/2021
of 29(59 of 63)#: 502
PageID
01/01/21 Filed: 26
01/26/2021
of 29(60 of 63)#: 503
PageID
01/01/21 Filed: 27
01/26/2021
of 29(61 of 63)#: 504
PageID
01/01/21 Filed: 28
01/26/2021
of 29(62 of 63)#: 505
PageID
01/01/21 Filed: 29
01/26/2021
of 29(63 of 63)#: 506
PageID

21-01-26 Samsung Motion To Expedite

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

21-01-26 Samsung Motion To Expedite

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 21-1565 Document: 4-1 Page: 1 Filed: 01/26/2021 (1 of 63)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,

APPELLANTS’ MOTION TO EXPEDITE BRIEFING

Gregory S. Arovas John C. O’Quinn

1. The full name of all entities represented by us are:

2. The full names of all real parties in interest not

3. Parent corporations and publicly held companies that

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary

Samsung Research America is a wholly owned subsidiary of

Kirkland & Ellis LLP: Edward C. Donovan; David Rokach; Karthik

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP: Kevin Hardy

Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider, LLP: Paul Zeineddin

5. The title and number of any case known to counsel to be

The Court’s decision in this case may directly affect or be directly

6. Any information required under Fed. R. App. P. 26.1(b)

A Memorandum Opinion and Preliminary Injunction, Jan. 11,

B Order Granting Emergency Application for Temporary

C English translation and original text, Injunction entered by

Appellants (“Samsung”) respectfully request that the Court enter

the following expedited schedule for this appeal.

Appellants’ Opening Brief February 22, 2021

Appellees’ Response Brief March 22, 2021

Appellants’ Reply Brief April 5, 2021

Oral Argument to be held at the next available session; Fed.

Samsung has contacted Appellees (“Ericsson”), and is informed

that Ericsson opposes this motion. Samsung respectfully submits that

there is good cause to expedite this appeal because Samsung is under

in other tribunals throughout the United States and in pending

litigation in China. The proposed schedule will not prejudice either

party’s ability to present its arguments to this Court.

This is an appeal from a preliminary injunction the district court

issued against Samsung. (Attachment A, at 15). As merits briefs will

explain in greater detail, the district court’s injunction issued at

Ericsson’s request, in response to an injunction a Chinese court issued

against Ericsson weeks earlier. (Attachment C, at 11-13). The

underlying dispute in both forums concerns Samsung’s and Ericsson’s

negotiations over a worldwide cross-license to their respective portfolios

of standard-essential patents relating to the 4G and 5G standards.

Samsung and Ericsson’s previous cross-license expired at the end of

Each has committed to license their standard-essential patents on fair,

reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms, including

through pledges to the European Telecommunications Standards

By December 2020, the parties had not reached agreement on a

new cross-license. Samsung and Ericsson each initiated litigation,

based on the parties’ apparent impasse.

Samsung’s Lawsuit in China. Samsung filed its lawsuit first,

on December 7, 2020, in China. To Samsung’s knowledge, the United

global FRAND rates without requiring all parties’ prior consent,

and its Chinese affiliates filed a civil complaint against

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, contending that Ericsson’s licensing

offers to Samsung were inconsistent with Ericsson’s commitments to

license its 4G and 5G-essential patents on FRAND terms, and asking

Chinese court accepted the lawsuit on December 7, and assigned it to a

panel of judges on December 11. Samsung notified Ericsson of the

lawsuit on December 17, 2020. Ericsson has never disputed that

Ericsson’s Lawsuit in Texas. Ericsson filed its lawsuit second,

#1 (Original Complaint)). Ericsson’s complaint asserted contract-based

claims alleging that Samsung had breached its FRAND commitment,

breached its FRAND commitment. (E.D. Tex. Dkt. #1 at 17-18).2

The Chinese Court’s Antisuit Injunction. As Samsung’s

injunctions” to protect their ability to resolve those claims without

interference. Samsung applied for such an order from the Chinese