Mikey Campbell
Mobile systems heavyweight Ericsson plans to escalate its patent licensing case against Apple with a salvo of federal lawsuits and U.S. International Trade Commission complaints, requesting both damages and injunctions against the Cupertino company's devices.
Ericsson on Friday announced it filed seven lawsuits against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, as well as two ITC complaints, over 41 separate patents covering a variety of wireless standards and technology. Along with two U.S. exclusion orders, Ericsson is seeking damages with the complaints that were lodged yesterday.
The Swedish telecom giant claims many of the patents-in-suit are deemed standard essential IP relating to 2G, 3G and 4G LTE wireless network technology, while others are "critical" to certain aspects of Apple's products.
Kasim Alfalahi, Ericsson's chief intellectual property officer, said Apple device features like livestreaming and app functions rely on patented Ericsson technology. In addition to standard essential patents, the company alleges Apple is in infringement of non-essential inventions related to semiconductor component design, user interface software, location services and applications. Apple's iOS operating system is also a target.
Until January, Apple was paying Ericsson for a global license covering mobile technology inked in 2008 , but the iPhone maker refused to re-sign the contract after it expired last month. Ericsson asserts that the new license was offered on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, and said it made numerous attempts to find a fair solution, but Apple refused.
For its part, Apple in January filed a lawsuit against Ericsson for charging excessive royalty rates for 4G LTE technology, arguing the Swedish firm's IP is non-essential. Following Apple's legal move, Ericsson quickly countered with its own complaint in Texas.
The specifics of Ericsson's licensing terms are unknown, but the number could be substantial considering Apple was paying out royalties as a percentage of total device cost.
According to Bloomberg, only one of Ericsson's new Texas lawsuits assert standard essential patents, while that case and another overlap the ITC complaints. This means the two suits will likely be put on ice while the commission conducts its inquiry.
Charles Martin
Christine McKee
Oliver Haslam
110 Comments
Well, if there are FRAND, then Ericsson charges apple the same as everyone else, and apple is in the wrong, or they charge apple more than others, and Ericsson is in the wrong.
And, as usual, the lawyers, judges and the court system are the only real winners. Win or loose, they all get paid.
Charging a flat rate for every device manufacture sounds right, based on the details above Ericsson was trying to charge based on handset sale value so Apple would be paying far more than anyone else. If this is the case I hope they lose.
[quote name="Entropys" url="/t/184972/ericsson-unloads-legal-barrage-against-apple-in-ongoing-patent-licensing-dispute#post_2682445"]Well, if there are FRAND, then Ericsson charges apple the same as everyone else, and apple is in the wrong, or they charge apple more than others, and Ericsson is in the wrong.[/quote] Ericsson claims to have a standard royalty rate that everyone pays, tho it can be mitigated somewhat if the licensee is willing to license some of their own patents back to Ericsson. That makes sense doesn't it? What some will take exception to is the rate is tied to a percentage of the device cost (wholesale not retail).. Whether you think that's fair or not it is standard procedure for many of the big IP holders including companies like Qualcomm, Motorola and Nokia. It's not at all uncommon to tie royalties to the device cost.
You have to ask yourself why Apple, knowing it was using the patents, decided to stop paying two months ago. This leads me to believe that Erricson was looking for a larger payday from Apple than it previously got (think about how the iPhone has exploded since 2008). Also, specifically choosing that Texas court, as opposed to one near Apple? While I wouldn't call them patent trolls, the sure are exhibiting troll-like behavior.