Yesterday the U.S. International Trade Commission announced that it has instituted a Section 337 investigation titled Certain Wireless Communications Base Stations and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-871. This investigation is based on a complaint filed on January 24, 2013 by Adaptix, Inc. (a subsidiary of noted publicly-traded non-practicing entity Acacia Research) against Ericsson. The
Huawei, ZTE seek stay of InterDigital 3G/4G ITC investigation
On Friday we posted about the Answers filed by the respondents in In the Matter Certain Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-868) — the case better known as InterDigital’s ITC action against Huawei, Nokia, Samsung, and ZTE. And we’ve previously discussed how Huawei and ZTE are currently seeking an expedited determination of FRAND terms in Delaware district court, where they also expalined that they would seek to stay the ITC action. Today, Huawei and ZTE’s motion to stay the ITC investigation hit the docket (it was actually filed on Friday). Huawei and ZTE seek to halt the ITC investigation pending (1) the outcome of Inv. No. 337-TA-800 (involving the same parties and some of the same patents); and (2) a determination in Delaware of the terms of a FRAND license to InterDigital’s patents.
Continue Reading Huawei, ZTE seek stay of InterDigital 3G/4G ITC investigation
Huawei/Samsung/ZTE answer InterDigital’s ITC complaint, assert FRAND-related defenses
Lately, there’s been a lot of activity in InterDigital-related cases, both in district courts and the ITC. Aside from the hearing in Inv. No. 337-TA-800 (scheduled to wrap up today), the respondents named in InterDigital’s latest complaint (Inv. No. 337-TA-868) — Huawei, Nokia, Samsung, and ZTE — filed their answers yesterday. Given InterDigital’s assertion of 3G/4G cellular standard-essential patents here, it comes as no surprise to see that in addition to customary patent infringement defenses, the respondents have asserted several FRAND-specific defenses. Below is a quick rundown of the FRAND-specific defenses asserted by the individual respondents.
Continue Reading Huawei/Samsung/ZTE answer InterDigital’s ITC complaint, assert FRAND-related defenses
Huawei, ZTE seek expedited FRAND determinations in InterDigital 3G/4G standard-essential patent dispute
In early January, InterDigital filed a Section 337 complaint in the U.S. International Trade Commission against Huawei, Nokia, Samsung, and ZTE, accusing those companies’ 3G/4G-compliant smartphones and tablets of infringing several InterDigital patents (this is now ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-868). Because the ITC cannot award monetary relief, it’s common for complainants to also file corresponding infringement actions in district court, which InterDigital did here in the District of Delaware. In order to relieve ITC respondents from the burden of litigating in multiple venues simultaneously, 28 U.S.C. § 1659 allows respondents to seek a mandatory stay of the district court action pending the outcome of the ITC case. Generally, respondents seek such a stay. But here, neither Huawei nor ZTE have sought a stay — in fact, they have asked the Delaware district court to expedite discovery on FRAND issues. It’s an interesting strategic move in which they leverage recent guidance from government agencies and other pending litigation, and it’s a strategy that (if successful) may be followed by many more ITC respondents in the future.
Continue Reading Huawei, ZTE seek expedited FRAND determinations in InterDigital 3G/4G standard-essential patent dispute
Target dates set for Samsung-Ericsson, InterDigital ITC Section 337 SEP investigations
The statute that governs the U.S. International Trade Commission’s jurisdiction over patent infringement complaints requires the ITC to resolve its investigations into such complaints “at the earliest practicable time” Typically, ITC investigations will take anywhere from 12-18 months (depending on complexity, number of patents, etc.) from the institution of the investigation until the “target date,”
Acacia Research subsidiary Adaptix files new ITC complaint accusing Ericsson of infringing 4G LTE-essential patent
Assertion of standard-essential patents are all the rage at the ITC these days, with an upcoming trial on InterDigital’s claims (Inv. No. 337-TA-800), another recent complaint filed by InterDigital, dueling Ericsson-Samsung complaints, and the highly anticipated Final Determination in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-794 involving Apple and Samsung due in March. And today, a company named Adaptix — a subsidiary of noted non-practicing entity Acacia Research — threw its hat into the ring, firing off a Section 337 complaint accusing Ericsson’s 4G LTE base stations of infringing U.S. Pat. No. 6,870,808, titled “Channel Allocation in Broadband Orthoganol Frequency-Division Multiple-Access/Space-Division Multiple-Access Networks.” But this might not be your typical standard-essential patent case — it has a couple of twists.
Continue Reading Acacia Research subsidiary Adaptix files new ITC complaint accusing Ericsson of infringing 4G LTE-essential patent
InterDigital, Nokia, others dispute public interest implications of 3G/4G patent assertions
Earlier this month, InterDigital Communications filed a Section 337 complaint with the ITC, alleging that Samsung, Nokia, ZTE, and Huawei infringed several of InterDigital’s 3G and 4G-essential patents. As we noted in our earlier post on the matter, InterDigital included a statement regarding the public interest along with its complaint, attempting to preemptively assuage any public interest concerns the Commission may have due to the inclusion of standard-essential patents in the complaint. Over the past two weeks, though, the proposed respondents have each filed their own public interest statements with the ITC, asserting a number of reasons why the public interest might be adversely affected by the institution of an investigation based on InterDigital’s complaint.
Continue Reading InterDigital, Nokia, others dispute public interest implications of 3G/4G patent assertions
Steelhead Licensing expands cellular-essential patent assertion activities
Early in January we noted that a non-practicing entity named Steelhead Licensing had filed a number of complaints for patent infringement against various wireless device manufacturers and cellular carriers. Of particular note in those suits was that the patent at issue in all of the actions — U.S. Pat. No. 5,491,834, entitled “Mobile Radio Handover Initiation Determination” — was previously owned by British Telecom, is due to expire next month, and (according to Steelhead, apparently) is essential to various 3G and 4G wireless communications standards. On Friday, January 11, Steelhead expanded its assertion activities relating to the ‘834 patent, filing infringement actions against Acer, Amazon.com, Asustek, and Dell.
Continue Reading Steelhead Licensing expands cellular-essential patent assertion activities
Steelhead Licensing LLC files suit claiming wireless equipment makers and cellular carriers infringe cellular-essential patent
On Friday, January 4, 2013, a non-practicing entity named Steelhead Licensing LLC filed a litany of SEP-related lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against various wireless device manufacturers and cellular carriers. Each of the entities is accused of infringing a single, soon-to-expire (on Feb. 13) patent — U.S. Pat. No. 5,491,834, entitled “Mobile Radio Handover Initiation Determination.”
Continue Reading Steelhead Licensing LLC files suit claiming wireless equipment makers and cellular carriers infringe cellular-essential patent