Joaquín Almunia, the E.U. competition commissioner, did not impose any formal requirements before Google could complete the $12.5 billion deal that represents the Internet search giant’s first foray into hardware.
But the deal, coming at a time of heightened scrutiny by regulators over ownership of intellectual property governing computers and mobile communications, moved Mr. Almunia to indicate that the commission would be watching.
The decision, he said in a statement, “does not mean that the merger clearance blesses all actions by Motorola in the past or all future action by Google.” He said any action on “the question whether Motorola’s or Google’s conduct is compliant with E.U. antitrust law” would be taken separately.
Because U.S. and European regulators seek to coordinate on major transactions when possible, the Department of Justice, which is also reviewing the deal for antitrust concerns, could similarly approve the deal soon.
The clearance in Europe will also come as a relief for Google: The company is still attempting to fend off a separate investigation by the commission into whether the company has abused a dominant position in online search and advertising.
If it wins global approval, the takeover could give Google a portfolio of patents that form an impressive defense against infringement claims as it works to develop its popular Android operating system for mobile devices. Google could also use the expertise and facilities acquired in the purchase as a step to manufacturing other consumer devices, including a home entertainment system.
Mr. Almunia said he cleared the deal partly because Google’s business model has been to share its Android mobile operating system with other device makers in order to gain the widest user base, making it less likely that the company would restrict the use of Android solely to Motorola, which is a relatively minor player in Europe.
But Mr. Almunia expressed strong concerns about the way powerful technology companies had participated in setting the standards for the proper functioning of mobile devices like smartphones.
Owners of such patents could, “hold up competitors or even an entire industry to the detriment of consumers and innovation,” he said. “I can assure you that the commission will take further action if warranted to ensure that the use of standard essential patents by all players in the sector.”
Phone makers including Apple, Motorola and Samsung — a South Korean company that relies heavily on Android for many of its products — are pursuing legal battles worldwide over the levels and fairness of fees that they impose on each other for using patented technologies.
The commission is already investigating Samsung for the way it used standard essential patents and for the way it sought injunctions against its competitors in national courts. “That review is on-going and is being dealt with as a priority,” said Mr. Almunia, referring to the case against Samsung.
In one of the most recent cases, Apple filed a lawsuit in California last week claiming that the Galaxy Nexus, a Samsung smartphone, infringes on patents underlying the features customers expect from Apple products, like how the phone is unlocked and how it searches for information by voice command.
Last week, Google wrote to standard-setting organizations around the world pledging to license Motorola patents on fair and reasonable terms if the deal succeeded. Google promised to keep a cap on the fees it charges for licensing its technology at a top rate of 2.25 percent of the net selling price for each phone and sought to outline the conditions under which it would sue companies for patent infringement.
Google asked for permission to complete the deal in November, and the merger review lasted a month longer than originally foreseen because the commission asked Google for additional evidence in the case. But Google managed to fend off the much lengthier, in-depth review.
