Ericsson

Subscribe to Ericsson via RSS

Four parties have responded to the ITC’s request for statements on the public interest regarding ALJ Essex’s Initial Determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-868 (see our July 2, 2014 post), all addressing the ALJ’s FRAND analysis rejecting arguments against exclusion orders for standard-essential patents and addressing the obligations held by potential licensees. Three of the…

Qualcomm and Nokia weighed-in on the Ericsson v. D-Link appeal yesterday, each filing amici curiae briefs with the Federal Circuit.  The parties’ positions favored the patent owner, though each adopted different approaches to the issues on appeal.  Qualcomm focused on the fact-specific contractual nature of RAND commitments that patent owners rely on based on an…

Ericsson announced a global cross-license settlement agreement with Samsung for patents relating to GSM, UMTS and LTE standards, which settlement includes two ITC investigations and litigation in E.D. Tex. that we have followed.  Reports estimate that, in addition to exchange of consideration such as cross-licenses, Samsung will make an upfront payment to Ericsson of $650…

In an order dated January 16, 2014, the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) ordered another investigation into Ericsson’s licensing of cellular patents that are subject to FRAND obligations, which investigation will parallel a similar investigation of Ericsson that CCI ordered on November 12, 2013 (discussed in our prior post).  The rationale for this…

Two weeks ago, we posted about non-party IEEE’s amicus curaie brief in Ericsson v. D-Link, et al., an appeal pending before the Federal Circuit.  The appeal, initiated by defendants D-Link, Dell, Acer, Gateway, Netgear and Toshiba, challenges a jury’s damage award against the defendants for infringement of plaintiff Ericsson’s patents that are claimed to be…

Last week Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Gildea granted Adaptix’s motion to withdraw its Complaint and investigation of Ericsson’s alleged infringement of patents alleged to cover LTE standards used by Ericsson’s base stations (see our prior posts discussing Adaptix’s motion and Ericsson’s response).

ALJ Gildea’s ruling was short and succinct, noting–but not opining on–Ericsson’s assertion…

In an order dated November 12, 2013, the Competition Commission of India ordered an investigation into Ericsson’s licensing of cellular patents that are subject to FRAND obligations for certain ETSI standards.  This investigation is based on information provided by Micromax Informatics Limited (“the Informant”)  that had been approached by Ericsson (“the Opposite Party” or…

A couple weeks ago, we noted that Ericsson had submitted a Notice of New Authority in its ITC case against Samsung (Inv. No. 337-TA-862) concerning the USTR’s recent disapproval of the exclusion order in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-794.  In this Notice of New Authority, Ericsson requested that presiding Administrative Law Judge David P. Shaw…

Ericsson is a company that holds a significant number of standard-essential patents, and often seeks to monetize and enforce them.  (They were just awarded infringement damages in Texas, and they’re engaged in an SEP duel with Samsung in the ITC and in Texas).  It wasn’t surprising, then, when Ericsson last week suggested a framework for…

The U.S. Trade Representative’s recent disapproval of the ITC’s exclusion order in Inv. No. 337-TA-794 has generated a lot of discussion and uncertainty about the future enforcement of standard-essential patents at the U.S. International Trade Commission. But it seems generally accepted that going forward, both the Commission and litigants are going to have do…