This past Friday, Judge Richard Andrews of the District Court of Delaware held a hearing on InterDigital’s motions to dismiss several FRAND-related counterclaims in three district court cases InterDigital brought against Huawei, ZTE, and Nokia over 4G-essential patents. For a brief refresher on the issues raised in InterDigital’s motions to dismiss — which have been
Nokia opposes InterDigital’s motion to dismiss FRAND counterclaims
If all of these InterDigital-related FRAND issues seem hard to keep track of, they are — InterDigital is currently suing Huawei, Nokia, Samsung, and ZTE all in a single ITC action (337-TA-868) and in separate parallel actions in Delaware (as well as some of the same parties in a different ITC case, 337-TA-800
An update on the InterDigital-Huawei/ZTE FRAND fight in Delaware: InterDigital’s reply in support of motion to dismiss FRAND claims
FRAND issues are being hashed out in a lot of jurisdictions right now. Microsoft and Motorola are warring in Washington state, Apple and Motorola are fighting at the Federal Circuit, and Apple and Samsung are awaiting the International Trade Commission’s upcoming ruling later this month. Noted non-practicing entity InterDigital, meanwhile, has been trying
Huawei, ZTE tell Delaware court that their FRAND claims against InterDigital should not be dismissed
While InterDigital continues to press its claims of 3G- and 4G-essential patent infringement in the International Trade Commission against Huawei, Nokia, Samsung, and ZTE (Inv. No. 337-TA-868), the companies have also been fighting about FRAND-related issues in Delaware, where some of defendants have asserted FRAND-related counterclaims against InterDigital. A few weeks back, we noted InterDigital had asked the court to dismiss Huawei and ZTE’s FRAND counterclaims, arguing that they were not ripe and were not properly pleaded, among other reasons. Last Thursday, Huawei and ZTE filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss [LINK].
Continue Reading Huawei, ZTE tell Delaware court that their FRAND claims against InterDigital should not be dismissed
InterDigital seeks dismissal of Nokia’s FRAND counterclaims
Earlier this month we covered InterDigital’s efforts to dismiss Huawei and ZTE’s FRAND counterclaims, which were asserted against InterDigital in litigations in the U.S. District Court in Delaware. Yesterday, InterDigital filed another motion to dismiss FRAND-related counterclaims in a different Delaware district court litigation — this time, InterDigital seeks to have Nokia’s FRAND counterclaims
Non-practicing entity Wyncomm LLC claims WiFi devices infringe former AT&T patent
Just like with cellular standards, the widespread use of the IEEE 802.11 wireless networking (“WiFi”) standard often makes WiFi-compliant devices easy targets for patent infringement lawsuits — particularly suits brought by non-practicing entities. The most infamous of these NPEs targeting WiFi is probably Innovatio IP Ventures LLC, who has accused thousands of businesses of
InterDigital asks Delaware court to dismiss Huawei, ZTE’s FRAND counterclaims
The standard-essential patent battle between InterDigital and Chinese handset makers Huawei and ZTE rages on in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Recall that the parties are awaiting an Initial Determination in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-800, and are also involved in Inv. No. 337-TA-868. In the companion district court cases to the -868 investigation, Huawei and ZTE attempted to have the Delaware court expedite a determination of FRAND terms for InterDigital’s portfolio, an attempt that was rebuffed by the court. But now, in motion filed yesterday, InterDigital seeks to have Huawei and ZTE’s FRAND-related claims dismissed altogether. InterDigital argues that the FRAND counterclaims should have been asserted in an earlier litigation, are not ripe, and merely seek an advisory opinion. InterDigital also claims that Huawei and ZTE have failed to allege the existence of an enforceable contractual commitment under the applicable law.
Continue Reading InterDigital asks Delaware court to dismiss Huawei, ZTE’s FRAND counterclaims
Delaware district court denies motion to expedite FRAND determination in InterDigital case
Last week, we posted about ALJ Robert K. Rogers’ decision to deny the motion brought by Huawei, Nokia, and ZTE to stay InterDigital’s latest standard-essential patent ITC case (Inv. No. 337-TA-868) pending a FRAND determination in district court. On Thursday March 14, these parties’ efforts to seek an expedited FRAND determination took another blow. Judge Richard G. Andrews of the District Court of Delaware denied a motion brought by Huawei and ZTE to expedite discovery and trial on FRAND-related counterclaims.
Continue Reading Delaware district court denies motion to expedite FRAND determination in InterDigital case
Huawei, ZTE claim that without FRAND determination, InterDigital will “perpetuate an endless cycle of ITC litigation” over standard-essential patents
Yesterday, Huawei and ZTE filed a joint reply brief in support of their respective motions to expedite determination of the terms of a FRAND license for InterDigital’s standard-essential patents. The parties reiterate their willingness to take a FRAND license to InterDigital’s patents and assert that a prompt resolution of FRAND issues will moot other issues and litigation and will prevent Huawei/ZTE from facing irreparable harm.
Continue Reading Huawei, ZTE claim that without FRAND determination, InterDigital will “perpetuate an endless cycle of ITC litigation” over standard-essential patents
InterDigital opposes Huawei/Nokia/ZTE’s efforts to stay ITC investigation, saying motion is “based on speculation upon speculation”
Yesterday, InterDigital filed its opposition to Huawei & ZTE’s motion (later joined by another respondent, Nokia) to stay Inv. No. 337-TA-868, which is the ITC’s investigation into InterDigital’s 3G/4G standard-essential patent infringement-based Section 337 complaint. Much as it did in its prior opposition to Huawei/ZTE’s attempts to seek an expedited FRAND determination in Delaware district court, InterDigital here claims that nothing in the motion to stay counsels staying the investigation pending a determination of FRAND terms in Delaware — in fact, InterDigital attached its opposition to expedite the Delaware proceedings as an exhibit to its ITC stay opposition. After the jump, we’ll provide a brief summary of InterDigital’s arguments against staying the ITC case.
InterDigital wasn’t the only one filing papers in this case yesterday, though — Samsung also filed a response to the motion to stay. Samsung’s position is, succinctly, that “[w]hile Samsung does not join the Motion, Samsung does not oppose the requested stay.” (You may recall that Samsung has its own motion to terminate some of InterDigital’s infringement claims pending in this case).