Samsung

Subscribe to Samsung via RSS

Last week, it was reported that Apple won a decision against Samsung in Tokyo, Japan, where a judge ruled that Samsung failed to negotiate in good faith with Apple before bringing patent infringement claims over its standard-essential patents.  Until today, the court’s actual ruling was not publicly available.  But yesterday, Apple submitted a “Notice of New Facts” and a redacted copy of a translation of the Tokyo court’s decision to the U.S. International Trade Commission in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-794, and this submission hit the ITC’s docket this morning.

Recall that the -794 case is the ITC’s investigation over Apple’s alleged infringement of several Samsung patents (including two 3G cellular standard-essential patents), and that a Final Determination by the Commission is due no later than this Thursday, March 7 — and that the issue of the propriety of issuing an exclusion order for standard-essential patent infringement has been hotly debated here.  Apple argues that the Tokyo court’s decision and factual findings “underscore that it would be against the public interest to issue an exclusionary remedy to Samsung on declared-essential patents.”Continue Reading Apple cites recent Japanese court ruling as evidence against standard-essential patent exclusion order (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-794)

ITC LogoYesterday 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…

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

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

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

e.d. tex caseIt’s well-known that concerns about patent assertions by non-practicing entities were part of the impetus for the America Invents Act of 2011.  In order to prevent multiple unrelated defendants from being added to the same infringement suit on the sole basis that they are accused of infringing the same patent, the AIA added the so-called “misjoinder” provision (35 U.S.C. § 299) to the patent laws.  Briefly, Section 299 provides that defendants are properly joined if (1) infringement is asserted against the defendants based on the same transaction or occurrence or as to the same accused product or process, and (2) questions of fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.  Over the past year and a half, courts have been grappling with evaluating whether otherwise unrelated defendants are properly joined in infringement actions.  In his recent ruling in an Eastern District of Texas case involving IEEE 802.3 Ethernet technology, Magistrate John D. Love held that standards-compliant system-on-a-chip (SoC) suppliers may be properly joined with their customers under Section 299.
Continue Reading E.D. Texas court ruling shows “system-on-a-chip”-based infringement accusations can satisfy AIA’s joinder rules (U.S. Ethernet v. Samsung)

CAFCThis isn’t a necessarily a standard-essential patent issue (and it’s been covered by many others such as IPLaw360 and Groklaw over the past couple days), but as something that could affect how parties enforce standard-essential patent rights in U.S. courts, we thought it’d be worth a quick post.  Earlier this week, Apple filed its opening brief in its appeal of Judge Lucy Koh’s decision to deny Apple a permanent injunction against Samsung.  In her post-trial decision applying the eBay analysis and denying an injunction, Judge Koh found that Apple failed to demonstrate a “causal nexus” between Samsung’s infringement of Apple’s utility and design patents and the irreparable harm to Apple (e.g., loss of market share and downstream sales).  Apple argues in its brief to the Federal Circuit that there was no need for it to demonstrate such a causal nexus, and that even if there is, the evidence does show a nexus between infringement and irreparable harm.
Continue Reading Apple urges Federal Circuit to eliminate or minimize “causal nexus” requirement for permanent injunctions

ITC LogoWe’ve previously covered the bilateral standard-essential patent battle brewing between Ericsson and Samsung in the U.S. International Trade Commission (as well as the Eastern District of Texas).  The ITC has instituted two investigations surrounding the parties’ claims: Inv. No. 337-TA-862 (based on Ericsson’s complaint) and Inv. No. 337-TA-866 (based on Samsung’s complaint).  Yesterday, Samsung filed the public version of its Response to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation (essentially, an answer to Ericsson’s complaint) in the -862 investigation.  Below is an overview of this filing, in which (surprise!) F/RAND-related issues and defenses have a starring role.
Continue Reading Samsung responds to Ericsson’s ITC complaint, accuses Ericsson of violating F/RAND obligations (337-TA-862)

ITC LogoThe 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,”…

LED TV

  • Patent Peace in South Korea:  Samsung and LG Electronics have settled their contentious patent and trade secret dispute relating to organic light-emitting diode (OLED) technology that is widely used in flat-panel televisions and computer monitors.  (via CNET)
  • For the second time in a week, the Federal Circuit denied Apple’s request for an en banc

…