District Courts

Subscribe to District Courts via RSS

The smartphone wars have definitely seen their share of assertions of standard-essential patents in recent years.  Even more of these SEPs entered the fray in a flurry of litigation at the end of 2012 between Ericsson and Samsung.

In late November 2012, Ericsson filed several complaints for patent infringement against Samsung – all of which relate to standard-essential patents.  On November 27, Ericsson filed two complaints in the E.D. Tex. against Samsung, alleging infringement of 24 patents that allegedly cover inventions relating to the use of various electronic devices such as telephones, base stations, televisions, computers, etc. in wireless communications networks.  One of Ericsson’s district court complaints also alleges that Samsung has breached its contractual obligations with the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) by failing to offer Ericsson a license to Samsung’s essential patents on FRAND terms, while the second district court complaint simply accuses Samsung of infringing 13 U.S. patents.  Then, on November 30, Ericsson also filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission accusing Samsung of violating 19 U.S.C. § 1337 by importing products that infringe the same 11 patents in Samsung’s first district court complaint.Continue Reading Ericsson, Samsung Engage in Standard-Essential Patent Battle

Because so many SEP-related issues have arisen over the past year, we will periodically revisit some of the more important occurrences with a brief post.  The recent bench trial before Judge James L. Robart of the Western District of Washington between Microsoft and Motorola a may yield a groundbreaking opinion in the area of standard-essential patents, so this is a case that warrants a review.

The dispute between the parties originated back in the fall of 2010.  Microsoft sued Motorola in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and the U.S. International Trade Commission, accusing Motorola Android devices of infringing several Microsoft patents.  Motorola in turn sent two letters to Microsoft, offered Microsoft licenses to two of Motorola’s standard-essential patent portfolio – for the 802.11 WiFi standard and the H.264 video coding standard – at a rate of 2.25% of the net selling price of the end products that practice those standards.  Microsoft then filed a complaint in the W.D. Wash. against Motorola for breach of contract – specifically, Microsoft alleged that Motorola’s offers to Microsoft breached Motorola’s prior promises to the IEEE and the ITU to offer licenses to its 802.11 and H.264-essential patents on RAND terms.Continue Reading Catching up on…Microsoft v. Motorola