Fifth Circuit overturns Motorola’s attempt to obtain evidence for European patent litigation

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has reversed an order allowing Motorola to obtain confidential patent acquisition documents from Advanced Standard Communication (ASC), finding that the request risked circumventing evidence-gathering decisions already made in parallel European patent proceedings.

The Fifth Circuit has overturned a US district court order granting Motorola access to an unredacted patent purchase agreement that it wanted to use in patent infringement proceedings in Europe.

In Motorola Mobility, L.L.C. v. Advanced Standard Communication, L.L.C., No. 26-10747, decided October 29, 2026, the appellate court found that the district court had misapplied the legal standards governing cross-border discovery applications under Section 1782 of the US Code.

The dispute concerns a portfolio of telecommunications patents that ASC acquired from Chinese technology company ZTE Corporation on December 31, 2022. ASC subsequently brought infringement proceedings against Motorola over three patents allegedly covering technology required for the manufacture of 5G-capable devices. One action was filed before the Unified Patent Court (UPC), while two others were brought before Munich District Court I in Germany.

Motorola primarily denied infringement but also argued that, should infringement be established, the patents would need to be licensed on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.

As part of its FRAND defense, Motorola sought access to ASC’s original patent purchase agreement (PPA) with ZTE, arguing that the agreement and its accompanying exhibits could provide information relevant to the valuation of the patents and the reasonableness of ASC’s licensing demands.

The public version of the agreement contained redactions and referred to licenses disclosed in an accompanying Exhibit IV, which was not included in the disclosed document.

Motorola turns to US discovery

In December 2025, Motorola applied to the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas for discovery under Section 1782, which allows US federal courts to order the production of evidence for use in foreign or international proceedings. Motorola initially sought five categories of documents, including the unredacted PPA, technical analyses of the patents, financial valuations, licensing agreements, and litigation funding information.

However, only the request for the unredacted PPA, including its exhibits, remained contested by the time of the appeal. Motorola argued that the agreement could help establish the market value of ASC’s patents and determine whether its proposed licensing terms complied with FRAND obligations.

ASC disputed the relevance of the purchase agreement, with its German legal expert arguing that patent purchase agreements are generally not directly relevant to FRAND assessments.

While the US discovery application was pending, Motorola also sought production of the same agreement from the UPC in January 2026. In April 2026, the UPC rejected the request, finding that Motorola had not sufficiently substantiated the facts it intended to establish through the documents.

The European court also questioned whether ASC’s patent acquisition price could provide reliable conclusions about reasonable licensing terms. It suggested that Motorola might already possess more relevant information through comparable patent licenses it had entered into for its own operations.

Importantly, the UPC clarified that its refusal applied to the current stage of proceedings and did not prevent a further disclosure order at a later date.

Despite the UPC’s decision, a US magistrate judge ordered production of the unredacted agreement in May 2026. The district court subsequently adopted that order, finding that the relevant factors favored disclosure. ASC challenged the decision and appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

Fifth Circuit identifies errors in discovery ruling

Writing for the appellate panel, Circuit Judge Edith Jones found that the district court had applied the wrong standard when reviewing the magistrate judge’s decision.

The Fifth Circuit explained that a Section 1782 application is a dispositive proceeding because obtaining discovery is its ultimate purpose. Consequently, a magistrate judge’s ruling in such a proceeding should be treated as a recommendation, with the district court required to conduct a de novo review when properly challenged under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

The district court had instead applied the more deferential clear-error standard under Rule 72(a), which governs nondispositive matters.

The appellate court also found that the district court had incorrectly placed the burden on ASC to provide authoritative proof that European courts would reject the evidence obtained through US discovery.

In assessing applications under Section 1782, US courts must consider four discretionary factors established by the Supreme Court in Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (2004).

These include whether the person from whom discovery is sought is a participant in the foreign proceedings, the receptivity of the foreign tribunal to US judicial assistance, whether the application attempts to circumvent foreign evidence-gathering restrictions, and whether the requested discovery is unduly intrusive or burdensome.

The Fifth Circuit clarified that the requirement for authoritative proof of foreign court non-receptivity applied to questions involving foreign legal privilege, rather than the broader discretionary assessment under the second Intel factor.

It also emphasized that respondents are not required to prove that foreign courts or legal systems would never accept evidence obtained through Section 1782. The Court therefore reconsidered the four factors in light of the evidence and the circumstances of the European proceedings.

Foreign court decisions weigh against disclosure

On the first Intel factor, the Fifth Circuit found that the fact ASC was already a party to the European litigation weakened the justification for US discovery.

The foreign courts had jurisdiction over the parties and could order the production of evidence themselves. Motorola had already sought the same agreement from the UPC, which had refused disclosure at that stage.

The second factor, concerning foreign court receptivity, also weighed against Motorola. Although Motorola’s German legal expert argued that German courts could accept evidence obtained through Section 1782, the Fifth Circuit considered the UPC’s refusal and the procedural context of the European proceedings.

The appellate court emphasized that the UPC had not permanently ruled out disclosure. Rather, it had determined that the request did not meet the necessary standards of relevance, necessity, and proportionality at the current stage. The Court concluded that the request was premature and that Motorola could seek disclosure again when the European proceedings reached a stage at which the documents might become more relevant.

The third factor, concerning attempts to circumvent foreign evidence-gathering restrictions, also weighed against Motorola. Judge Jones observed that Motorola was effectively seeking an alternative route to obtain documents after the UPC had refused its request. The Court considered that allowing US discovery in these circumstances could undermine the foreign proceedings, encourage parties to circumvent adverse procedural decisions, and create unnecessary inefficiencies.

However, the judgment made clear that Section 1782 does not impose a general requirement that evidence must first be obtainable under foreign discovery rules. Nor must applicants exhaust every available avenue in the foreign jurisdiction before seeking US assistance.

The fourth factor, concerning whether the requested discovery was unduly intrusive or burdensome, favored Motorola. The Court accepted that producing the unredacted agreement and its exhibits would not be particularly burdensome, expensive, or complicated for ASC. Nevertheless, this consideration was insufficient to outweigh the other factors.

Implications for cross-border patent disputes

The Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court had made legal and analytical errors when assessing the application, particularly by misallocating the burden of proof and failing to give sufficient weight to the UPC’s earlier decision.

Reassessing the Intel factors, the appellate court found that the overall balance favored protecting ASC from the requested discovery at this stage of the European litigation.

The decision provides important guidance for companies involved in international patent disputes, particularly those seeking to use US discovery procedures to obtain evidence for proceedings overseas.

It reinforces the importance of considering the procedural context of foreign litigation and the potential implications of obtaining evidence through US courts after a foreign tribunal has already considered and refused a similar request.

For patent owners and licensing businesses, the ruling also highlights the potential difficulties of relying on patent acquisition agreements as evidence in FRAND disputes, particularly where the relevance of purchase prices and associated licensing arrangements remains contested.

However, the decision does not permanently prevent Motorola from obtaining the agreement. The company may renew its request before the European courts if the documents become relevant at a later stage, or submit a fresh Section 1782 application if circumstances materially change.

The Fifth Circuit therefore reversed the district court’s order, finding that the balance of considerations favored ASC’s protection from the requested disclosure at the present stage of proceedings.

← Back to News