Technology & Law

The law follows the technology...

Topics

SEPs

INDIA’S FIRST ANTI-ANTI SUIT INJUNCTION (OR A2SI) ORDER: A MISSED OPPORTUNITY

On 03 May, 2021, the Delhi High Court in InterDigital Corp & Ors. v Xiaomi Corp & Ors. issued its first and presumably first global A2SI InterDigital v Xiaomi DHC 03052021.pdf 1.47 MB (this terminology was first introduced by Florian Mueller on his blog fosspatents.com here).  The judgment confirms its earlier order of 09.10.2020 in favour of InterDigital.  See previous post here. In its judgment, the court has directed Xiaomi to indemnify InterDigital against any penalty, if issued by the Wuhan court.  Readers would remember that the Wuhan court had issued a penalty of RMB 1 million (~ $150,000) per day against InterDigital in its Anti-Suit Inj... Continue reading

DHC IS NOW A HOTBED OF SEP LITIGATION - PHILIPS SUES VIVO & XIAOMI FOR INFRINGING LTE PATENTS

Some time back, I had posted that Philips had sued Vivo and others, on the blog here.  The Delhi High Court in two separate orders has issued orders against Vivo and Xiaomi to secure Philips interest during trial (see attached orders below).This post focusses on the value on the basis of which Philips interest is secured.  The operative part from the judgments first:Philips v. Vivo 2. Counsel for the parties are agreed that in order to hasten the trial in the suit and final adjudication, the following directions can be issued:   (i) The defendant nos. 1 and 2 will not create any encumbrance or third party rights in the immovable property and the superstructure described as follows: “IT... Continue reading

DHC IS NOW A HOTBED OF SEP LITIGATION - PHILIPS SUES VIVO FOR INFRINGING LTE PATENTS

This is in continuation of my previous post that the DHC has become a go to venue for SEP litigation.The latest is that Philips has sued VIVO (18.09.2020) and others for infringing its 3G / 4G patents, some of which have already expired.    The patents in issue are: (i) IN 275419 (ii) IN 271469 (iii) IN 228133 (iv) IN 221703 (v) IN 211041 Out of these patents,  IN 221703 and IN 211041 have expired. More precisely, the patents relate to Universal Mobile Telecommunication System / High Speed Packet Access / Evolved High Speed Packet Access and Long Term Evolution.In the first order of 18.09.2020, I see that Philips (allegedly) had demanded $1  from Vivo.  Whether or not that is FRAND, on... Continue reading

DELHI HC BECOMES THE GO TO VENUE FOR ADJUDICATING SEP DISPUTES IN INDIA

Banner image from here. image_InterDigitalvXiaomicases.png 39.6 KB A couple of days ago, InterDigital filed two patent infringement law suits against Xiaomi at the Delhi High Court (DHC) for infringement of its standard essential patents (SEPs). The matters are CS(Comm) 295/2020 and 296/2020 for infringement of its patents related to cellular and H.265/HEVC – (video compression) technologies. These are IN262910; IN295912 ; IN298719;  IN313036; & IN320182  for the cellular patents and IN242248 / IN299448 & IN308108 for the video compression patents. InterDigital is seeking injunctive relief apart from compensatory / punitive damages for infrin... Continue reading

QUALCOMM UNDER FIRE: KOREA FTC, US FTC, CLASS ACTION SUITS, AND APPLE

This (long) post is about Qualcomm.  Qualcomm has a business model that is based on IP, whether it is IP creation (SEP or manufacturing related) or IP licensing.  It has been the historical practice in the technology industry that licensing was, and per Qualcomm and related parties, still is, done on end value of device. Qualcomm, Ericsson, and Nokia are three top players in the SEP licensing domain and unsurprisingly hold similar views as their business model is SEP licensing.  For example, all three gave similar statements to the effect that they will not contribute to the IPR, under the new IEEE policy post February 2015, when smallest component value was inserted into the IEEE ... Continue reading