Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v. Xiaomi Technology & Ors

In the high-stakes world of mobile technology patents, securing an interim injunction can feel like winning the war before the first shot is fired. But what happens when the very party that secured that urgent relief is later accused of hiding the truth from the court? The clash between Ericsson and Xiaomi offers a masterclass in why candor before a judge is not optional — it is the price of admission to urgent relief.

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, one of the world's most influential telecommunications companies, found itself in a familiar position for patent holders in the mobile era: alleging infringement. Ericsson sued Xiaomi Technology and others, claiming that Xiaomi's mobile devices infringed several of its standard-essential patents covering AMR (Adaptive Multi-Rate) codecs, 3G technology, and EDGE technology. Believing the matter was urgent, Ericsson sought and obtained an interim injunction against Xiaomi. Xiaomi, however, pushed back hard — not by arguing the merits of the patents themselves, but by attacking the very foundation of how Ericsson had obtained the order in the first place.

Xiaomi's strategy was surgical. Rather than wading into the complex technical arguments over AMR, 3G, and EDGE, Xiaomi filed an application seeking vacation of the interim injunction on a single, devastating ground: concealment of material facts. Xiaomi alleged that Ericsson had deliberately withheld a critical piece of information from the court when seeking the ex-parte order — specifically, an agreement Ericsson had with Qualcomm concerning CDMA applications. Ericsson, predictably, defended its conduct and the validity of the injunction it had secured. The legal friction was not about who invented what technology first; it was about whether the party asking for urgent relief had played fair with the tribunal.

The court sided with Xiaomi. It found that Ericsson had indeed failed to disclose its agreement with Qualcomm regarding CDMA applications — a fact the court deemed material to the claim being advanced. Because Ericsson had not met its heightened duty of candor as a party seeking an ex-parte injunction, the court vacated the interim order, at least with respect to two of the patents at issue. The ruling sent a clear message: an interim injunction is a powerful remedy, and it can be taken away just as quickly as it was granted if the applicant is found to have withheld relevant information from the court.

For founders, IP litigators, and startup leaders, the lesson is blunt and unforgiving: if you are seeking urgent relief from a court, you cannot cherry-pick the facts you present. The duty of disclosure is heightened precisely because the other side is not in the room to challenge you. Before filing for an ex-parte or interim injunction, conduct a rigorous internal audit of every related agreement, license, and prior arrangement — even those that seem tangential. One undisclosed contract can be the difference between a powerful injunction and a vacated order, and between a credible litigant and one the court no longer trusts.