Skip to content

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Apple Retail Netherlands B.V. et al, District Court The Hague, Preliminary Relief proceedings, 18 October 2021, Case No. ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:11312

In the dispute between Ericsson and Apple, Ericsson is demanding the imposition of a freezing measure pending the hearing of the summary proceedings.

The preliminary relief Judge refuses:

“In that context, Ericsson invokes a threat that Apple et al. will institute an anti-suit injunction (hereinafter: ASI) against Ericsson somewhere in the world, which will also cover proceedings in the Netherlands regarding patents that are valid here. Ericsson stated in the writ of summons that this threat follows from the fact that Apple et al. filed an ASI in a dispute with Qualcomm in proceedings in the United States of America in 2017. However, as follows from the Order of the Southern District Court of California (and as Apple et al also pointed out), in those proceedings it was not Apple et al but Qualcomm that requested an ASI. Ericsson indicated at the hearing that its statement was indeed based on an erroneous assumption.

“For the rest, Ericsson has not stated anything from which a concrete threat follows. The fact that other parties have instituted such ASIs in similar circumstances does not mean that Apple et al. will do so. The fact that Apple et al. is unwilling to make a commitment not to institute an ASI against Ericsson is in itself not a sufficient threat as required for the taking of an interim measure. The preliminary relief Judge states first and foremost that Ericsson is not entitled to such a promise. The fact that Apple et al. does not want to give this commitment could possibly be an additional circumstance if Apple et al. has actually filed an ASI against Ericsson/third party patent holder(s) in the past or there are other circumstances from which a threat to do so can be inferred. That is not the case in this case.

The judgment (in Dutch) can be read here.