Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00001/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00001-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:2201dj Declaratory Judgment

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No.: 3:19-cv-001-CAB-(BLM)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TRO and PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

U-BLOX AG, U-BLOX SAN DIEGO, 

INC., AND U-BLOX AMERICA, 

INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INTERDIGITAL, INC.; 

INTERDIGITAL 

COMMUNICATIONS, INC; 

INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY 

CORPORATION; INTERDIGITAL 

PATENT HOLDINGS, INC.; 

INTERDIGITAL HOLDINGS, 

INC.; and IPR LICENSING, INC.

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-001-CAB-(BLM)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION 

[Doc. No. 2]

Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo

Courtroom: 4C

Case 3:19-cv-00001-CAB-BLM Document 49 Filed 02/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 Case No.: 3:19-cv-001-CAB-(BLM)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FO R T RO and O SC RE PRELI MINARY INJUN CTION

Before the Court is a motion for preliminary injunction1filed by plaintiffs ublox AG, u-blox San Diego Inc., and u-blox America, Inc., (collectively “u-blox”) 

against defendants InterDigital Inc., InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital 

Technology Corp., InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Holdings, Inc., and 

IPR Licensing, Inc., (collectively “InterDigital “). [Doc. No. 2.] InterDigital opposed 

the motion. [Doc. No. 33.] u-blox filed a reply. [Doc. No. 42.] A hearing on the 

motion was held on January 31, 2019. For the reasons set forth on the record at the 

hearing [Doc. No. 48] and below, the motion is DENIED.

I. Background

InterDigital has a portfolio of patents in 2G, 3G and 4G wireless technology. 

There was no dispute, in the context of this motion, that the InterDigital patents are 

standard essential patents (“SEP”) and subject to fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (“FRAND”) licensing. From 2011 to 2016, u-blox had a license to 

practice the patents in InterDigital’s portfolio under FRAND terms. Two original 

design manufacturers (“ODMs”) made devices for u-blox under a “have made”

provision of u-blox’s license with InterDigital. These ODMs also have license 

agreements with InterDigital for the same SEP portfolio. While u-blox paid the 

license fee, the ODMs were covered and owed no royalties.

At the end of 2016, the license between u-blox and InterDigital expired. 

InterDigital notified the ODMs that they would be responsible for royalty payments 

in accordance with the terms of their licenses with InterDigital, as u-blox was 

unlicensed. u-blox then negotiated with InterDigital for a new license, which was 

entered in August, 2017, retroactive to January, 2017, and with an expiration date at 

the end of September, 2018.

 

1 The motion was submitted as an Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and

Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction, however u-blox provided notice to 

InterDigital as required by CivLR 83.3(h)(2) and the parties briefed the motion according

to a schedule they jointly submitted. [Doc. No. 20.] Consequently the Court proceeded on 

the motion as a request for preliminary injunction. 

Case 3:19-cv-00001-CAB-BLM Document 49 Filed 02/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2-

SMRH:489022377.1

As the 2017 license was reaching expiration, u-blox sought to renew on new 

terms, as it asserted the current terms were not FRAND licensing terms. The parties 

extended the 2017 license agreement to December 31, 2018 to continue negotiations, 

but they had not reached terms by that date and the license again expired. 

On January 1, 2019, u-blox filed a complaint seeking the Court declare FRAND 

terms for the license to InterDigital’s SEP portfolio. [Doc No. 1.] u-blox also filed its 

motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin InterDigital during the pendency of the 

action

from contacting u-blox’s customers and downstream manufacturers, 

demanding royalty payments from them for products incorporating u-blox 

technology, or otherwise disrupting or interfering with u-blox’s relationships 

with its customers and downstream manufacturers. 

InterDigital responded that it has never demanded royalty payments from u-blox’s 

customers, nor does it intend to. It also indicated that it is willing to negotiate with ublox to renew its license. InterDigital however responded that it has the right to 

enforce its license agreements with its licensees and will do so during the pendency 

of this action.

II. Legal Standard

The grant or denial of a preliminary injunction under 35 U.S.C. § 283 is within 

the sound discretion of the district court. Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnes and noble.com, 

Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “A preliminary injunction is an 

extraordinary remedy never awarded as a matter of right.” Winter v. Natural 

Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary 

injunction must establish that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits, that [it] is likely 

to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of 

equities tips in [its] favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20. 

The district court must weigh and measure each factor against the other factors and 

against the form and magnitude of the relief requested. “[A] movant cannot be 

Case 3:19-cv-00001-CAB-BLM Document 49 Filed 02/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-3-

SMRH:489022377.1

granted a preliminary injunction unless it establishes both of the first two factors, i.e.

likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.” Amazon.com, 239 F.3d at 

1350. 

To demonstrate irreparable harm is likely in the absence of a preliminary 

injunction the movant must show more than speculative concerns that the non-moving 

party will engage in some activity. “An injunction will not be issued simply to prevent 

the possibility of some remote future injury.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22, citing 11A C. 

Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948.1, p. 154-55 

(2d ed. 1995). Issuing an injunction based only on a possibility of irreparable harm is 

inconsistent with the characterization of injunctive relief as an extraordinary remedy 

that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such 

relief. Winter, 555 U.S. at 22.

III. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

u-blox asserts two causes of action to support its request for injunctive relief, a

request for declaratory judgment and a breach of contract claim. [Doc. No. 1] Both 

are based on u-blox’s assertion that InterDigital refuses to license u-blox at FRAND 

rates in violation of its contractual obligations with the European 

Telecommunications Standards Institute (“ETSI”). The parties have not reached a 

license agreement, however, u-blox has not demonstrated the InterDigital refuses to 

license it. To the contrary, InterDigital has engaged in licensing negotiations and 

affirmatively represented its willingness to continue to do so. The parties appear to 

be at an impasse as to the rate. 

The declaratory judgment claim requests the Court set the FRAND rate. 

Absent an agreement between the parties, the Court will issue a judgment that sets the 

applicable FRAND terms and conditions. u-blox therefore contends it necessarily 

will prevail on its declaratory relief claim because a rate will be set by the Court. 

u-blox however has not demonstrated that the terms it proposes as FRAND are 

more likely to be accepted than the terms InterDigital proposes. The motion does not 

Case 3:19-cv-00001-CAB-BLM Document 49 Filed 02/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-4-

SMRH:489022377.1

even discuss the actual terms in dispute. That an order will issue in a declaratory 

relief action may be inevitable, but that does not demonstrate that the moving party 

will get the order it seeks. The motion makes no effort to demonstrate the likelihood 

that the Court will adopt u-blox’s preferred rate over the rates offered by InterDigital. 

Nor has u-blox demonstrated that InterDigital has breached its contract 

obligation with ETSI to license at a FRAND rate by simply asserting that InterDigital 

will not license u-blox on the terms u-blox demands. No evidence was presented to 

support u-blox’s assertion that InterDigital is demanding rates that cannot constitute 

FRAND terms. It is not sufficient for u-blox to make a blanket allegation that the 

rates InterDigital is proposing are unfair and therefore in breach of InterDigital’s 

contract obligations. The motion is full of conclusory characterizations but woefully 

deficient on specifics as to the actual proposed rates and any analysis as to why those 

rate are FRAND or not FRAND.

The Court therefore finds that u-blox has not met its burden to establish a 

likelihood of success on the merits. 

IV. Irreparable Harm

Having failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits, u-blox’s motion 

fails. The Court however will also address u-blox’s contentions of irreparable harm.

A movant must make a clear showing that it is at risk of irreparable harm, which 

entails showing a likelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable injury. Apple, 

Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd., Inc., 678 F.3d 1314, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “An 

injunction will not be issued simply to prevent the possibility of some remote future 

injury.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22.

Without a current license to InterDigital’s patents, u-blox contends that 

InterDigital will try to extract extortionate royalty rates from u-blox’s customers and 

threaten them with injunctions. These anticipated actions are purportedly intended to 

force u-blox to enter into an unreasonable license agreement to avoid disruption to its 

Case 3:19-cv-00001-CAB-BLM Document 49 Filed 02/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-5-

SMRH:489022377.1

business and loss of goodwill. No evidence however has been presented that 

InterDigital has taken any such steps or intends to. 

In the past when u-blox’s license expired, InterDigital contacted the ODM 

licensees to put the ODMs on notice that they were no longer covered by u-blox’s 

license terms. According to the terms of the ODMs’ licenses, the ODMs then became 

subject to the royalty payments. u-blox offers no legal justification for barring 

InterDigital from enforcing its license agreements with its other licensees. The claims 

that InterDigital threatened u-blox’s customers with injunctions was not supported by 

any evidence and the argument that InterDigital will do so in the future is purely 

speculative. 

The Court therefore finds that u-blox has not met its burden to establish a clear 

risk of irreparable harm. 

V. Conclusion

Having failed to establish either a likelihood of success on the merits or 

irreparable harm, the Court does not find it necessary to address either InterDigital’s 

First Amendment argument or the argument that the proposed injunction is vague and 

overbroad. The motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00001-CAB-BLM Document 49 Filed 02/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6