Sam Oliver
Facing an antitrust lawsuit from the European Union for allegedly abusing its ownership of standard-essential patents, Samsung has reportedly begun talks with regulators to settle the charges before a trial can begin.
Citing two people familiar with the matter, Reuters reported on Tuesday that preliminary settlement talks have begun between Samsung and the European Commission, which is the competition regulator for the EU. Among the companies who are alleged to have been hurt by Samsung's actions are rival smartphone maker Apple.
Samsung was formally charged by the European Commission last December. The Korean electronics maker is accused of abusing its dominant market position to gain a foothold in legal disputes being waged against Apple.
Specifically, Samsung has been accused of misusing standard-essential patents it owns as legal weapons to gain leverage in its ongoing patent infringement disputes against Apple. Samsung, however, has a duty to license standard-essential patents to rivals under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.
Apple, too, has argued that Samsung did not meet its requirements as a standard-essential patent holder. Instead, it has accused Samsung of filing lawsuits seeking injunctions against Apple devices for those patents before making a licensing offer.
Now, with EU regulators prepared to go to court, Samsung actively "wants to settle," one source quoted in Tuesday's report said. However, they added it's too early to determine whether the current talks would actually result in a deal that would allow Samsung to avoid fines of as much as $17.3 billion.
The U.S. Department of Justice is said to have also taken an interest in Samsung's lawsuits involving standard-essential patents. However, while the DOJ has reportedly opened an investigation against Samsung, no antitrust suit has been filed.
Christine McKee
Charles Martin
Oliver Haslam
William Gallagher
Sponsored Content
24 Comments
If Samsung wants to settle, fine. FINE!
Maybe the EU could give some instructions on SEP to the ITC.
Maybe the EU could give some instructions on SEP to the ITC.
They have the same ideas already.
Both the EU and the ITC have stated that Standards Essential Patent holders do not give up basic patent owner rights, such as the right to seek an injunction in the case of unwilling licensees.
The difference in the two situations is that the EU Commission is saying that just opening negotiations demonstrates willingness, even if nothing happens afterwards... whereas the ITC found that Apple demonstrated unwillingness by refusing the first offer and then not seeking any further arbitration.
The silly thing is, both Samsung and Apple are being punished for breaking rules that are still being defined. The right thing to do would be for the EUC and ITC to FIRST make their rules plain, THEN go after anyone who breaks them. Instead they're both using these companies to further their own bureaucratic power, while they figure out their own rules.
^ You keep spewing that same BS based on a couple decisions when the MAJORITY of rulings DO NOT agree . Most courts, judges, government, organizations, academics and major tech companies DO NOT agree.
So stop with your usual crap of trying to take a minority position and claim it's what everyone thinks.
[quote name="KDarling" url="/t/158228/samsung-in-talks-to-settle-eu-antitrust-case-involving-apple-essential-patents#post_2352136"] They have the same ideas already. Both the EU and the ITC have stated that Standards Essential Patent holders do not give up basic patent owner rights, such as the right to seek an injunction in the case of unwilling licensees. The difference in the two situations is that the EU Commission is saying that just opening negotiations demonstrates willingness, even if nothing happens afterwards... whereas the ITC found that Apple demonstrated unwillingness by refusing the first offer and then not seeking any further arbitration. The silly thing is, both Samsung and Apple are being punished for breaking rules that are still being defined. The right thing to do would be for the EUC and ITC to FIRST make their rules plain, THEN go after anyone who breaks them. Instead they're both using these companies to further their own bureaucratic power, while they figure out their own rules. [/quote] The EU has a Q&A here. You appear to be correct that the EC is not saying that injunctive relief should not be available for SEP infringement. Instead they may have a fairly broad definition of a "willing licensee". "[B][SIZE=4]Is the Commission generally questioning the use of injunctions by patent-holders? No. Recourse to injunctive relief is generally a legitimate remedy for patent-holders in case of patent infringements. The case is therefore not about eliminating the use of injunctions by patent-holders. Rather, the Commission has reached the preliminary conclusion that the seeking and enforcing of an injunction for SEPs can constitute an abuse of a dominant position in the exceptional circumstances of this case - where the holder of a SEP has given a commitment to license these patents on FRAND terms and where the company against which an injunction is sought has shown to be willing to enter into a FRAND licence." "Under what circumstances can a potential licensee be considered "willing" to enter into a FRAND licence? In the case at hand, the Commission is of the preliminary view that Apple's willingness to enter into a FRAND licence manifested itself in particular by its acceptance to be bound by a German court's determination of a FRAND royalty rate. The Commission's preliminary view is that the acceptance of binding third party determination for the terms of a FRAND licence in the event that bilateral negotiations do not come to a fruitful conclusion is a clear indication that a potential licensee is willing to enter into a FRAND licence. This process allows for adequate remuneration of the SEP-holder so that seeking or enforcing injunctions is no longer justified once a potential licensee has accepted such a process. By contrast, a potential licensee which remains passive and unresponsive to a request to enter into licensing negotiations or is found to employ clear delaying tactics cannot be generally considered as "willing"."[/SIZE][/B] Motorola could get the same treatment from the EC. IMO the standards- setting organizations bear much of the blame for failing to define the rules under which patents are included in the standards. Outside agencies changing or defining the rules after the fact introduces issues that may not have existed when the patents were pledged. Companies that chose to allow them included in those standards in the first place might have made a different decision had they known how it would be treated today.