Samsung

Subscribe to Samsung via RSS

ITC LogoLast week, both Apple and Samsung filed their initial submissions in response to the U.S. International Trade Commission’s March 13 order for additional briefing in In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Table Computers (Inv. No. 337-TA-794).  In a post last Friday, we discussed the submission by the ITC’s Office of Unfair Import Investigations.  After the jump, we’ll give an overview of the positions set forth in the parties’ respective briefs.  It will not be a surprise to anyone following the smartphone wars or standard-essential patent issues that Apple and Samsung vehemently disagree over nearly everything having to do with the standard-essential patent and FRAND issues in this case.
Continue Reading New ITC briefs filed by Apple, Samsung demonstrate fundamental dispute over standard-essential patents and meaning of FRAND

This past Wednesday, April 3 was the deadline for the parties and the public to submit responses to the U.S. International Trade Commission’s request for additional briefing in Inv. No. 337-TA-794 (Samsung-Apple).  In addition to Apple and Samsung, several other parties submitted responses, including:

In a later post, we will summarize the submissions from Apple, Samsung, and the various third parties.  But in this post we’ll address the brief submitted by the OUII (or ITC “Staff”) — a third party that represents the public interest in many ITC cases (and who, as we recently noted, has taken a keen interest in SEP-related issues of late).

Notably, OUII expresses the view that public interest considerations do not bar the issuance of an exclusion order based on Apple’s alleged infringement of Samsung’s 3G-essential technology.  In OUII’s view, even if Samsung has FRAND obligations with respect to the standard-essential patents at issue, Apple has not carried its burden to show that Samsung violated these obligations.
Continue Reading ITC Staff: Exclusion order is an appropriate remedy for Apple infringement of Samsung SEP

If anyone needed more evidence that the U.S. International Trade Commission is paying a lot of attention to standard-essential patents and FRAND-related issues, they received some yesterday.  The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (OUII), a neutral third party who commonly participates in ITC investigations as a representative of the public interest, notified the ITC…

For the last few months, Samsung and Ericsson have been engaged in a wide-ranging patent infringement skirmish, both in the Eastern District of Texas and in the U.S. International Trade Commission (Inv. Nos. 337-TA-862, 337-TA-866).  Many of the infringement assertions in these cases relate to the 4th-generation Long-Term Evolution (LTE) wireless communications standard, as well as other wireless communications standards promulgated by ETSI and IEEE.  Earlier this week, Samsung filed its Answer and Counterclaims in response to Ericsson’s complaint in case no. 6:12-cv-00894 in the Eastern District of Texas.

Pulling no punches, Samsung not only accuses Ericsson of breaching its FRAND obligations (an accusation it has previously made), but also asserts additional patents against Ericsson — including patents already being asserted in the ITC.  And notably, Samsung also paints Ericsson as a non-practicing entity that is trying to engage in patent hold up — Samsung states that Ericsson “now feels unhinged as a non-practicing entity in the mobile phone market to extort vastly unreasonable and discriminatory license fees,” and that it “seeks to ignore over a decade of licensing history between the companies and to travel down a new road as an NPE extracting irrational sums from Samsung under threat of an ITC exclusion order.”  Rhetoric aside, though, the meat of Samsung’s answer is really about its FRAND-related defenses and infringement counterclaims.


Continue Reading Samsung-Ericsson standard-essential patent battle heats up as Samsung asserts additional patents in E.D. Tex.

If there was any doubt about the importance of standard-essential patent issues at the ITC, we can certainly put that to rest.  For the second time in a week, the Commission issued a Notice extending the target date for its Final Determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-794, the Section 337 investigation based on Samsung’s August 2011 complaint against Apple.  But unlike its last brief extension, the ITC this time extended its deadline until May 31, 2013 — and requested additional comments on the public interest and briefing from the parties on several issues.

The Commission’s particular questions (reproduced after the jump) show just how seriously the ITC is taking standard-essential patent issues.  Additionally, the content of these questions may imply that the Commission could be leaning toward a finding that Apple infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,706,348 — a patent that Samsung has alleged is essential to the UMTS 3G cellular standard — and is now trying to decide what if any remedy it should order.Continue Reading ITC again extends target date in Samsung-Apple case (337-TA-794), asks for additional public interest comments and party briefing

ITC LogoOn Friday, March 8, Ericsson filed the (redacted) public version of its answer to Samsung’s Complaint and the Notice of Investigation in In the Matter of Certain Wireless Communications Equipment and Articles Therein (Inv. No. 337-TA-866).  This ITC Section 337 investigation is based on a January 2013 complaint from Samsung that alleges Ericsson’s 4G LTE-compatible base stations infringe several Samsung LTE-essential patents.

Given Samsung’s assertion of standard-essential patents, it’s no surprise that Ericsson’s complaint includes FRAND-based defenses.  
Continue Reading Ericsson to ITC: Samsung breached its ETSI FRAND obligations for asserted 4G LTE patents (Inv. No. 337-TA-866)

Yesterday we covered InterDigital’s opposition to Huawei, Nokia, and ZTE’s efforts to stay the ITC’s investigation into InterDigital’s latest Section 337 complaint pending a potential FRAND determination in the District of Delaware.  We also noted that the other respondent, Samsung, did not join the motion but stated that it did not oppose such a stay.    The ITC Investigative Staff from the Office on Unfair Important Investigations (a third party that participates in many ITC investigations as a representative of the public interest) also filed its own response to the motion yesterday.  The Staff opposes the motion to stay for a variety of reasons, which we will get into below.
Continue Reading ITC Staff opposes motion to stay pending FRAND determination in InterDigital Section 337 investigation (337-TA-868)

Today was the target date for the ITC’s Final Determination in In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers (Inv. No. 337-TA-794).  But today, the Comission issued a notice to extend the target date for completion of the investigation until next…

ITC LogoYesterday, 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).Continue Reading InterDigital opposes Huawei/Nokia/ZTE’s efforts to stay ITC investigation, saying motion is “based on speculation upon speculation”