• Home
  • 1st Annual Symposium
  • About
  • Available Positions
  • Issues
    • Vol. 4 Issue 2
    • Vol. 4 Issue 1
    • Vol. 3 Issue 3
    • Vol. 3, Issue 2
    • Vol. 3, Issue 1
    • Vol. 2, Issue 3
    • Vol. 2, Issue 2
    • Vol. 2, Issue 1
    • Vol. 1, Issue 1
  • Staff
    • 2009-2010 Staff
    • 2010-2011 Staff
    • 2011-2012 Staff
    • 2012-2013 Staff
  • Submissions
  • Subscribe
Featured Article

A featured article from the current issue of the Intellectual Property Brief.

Daily Blog

A daily blog of IP-related news and issues

Articles

All of the Intellectual Property Brief’s published articles. All articles are hand-selected from outside submissions and from our very own IPB staff members.

Issues

PDF versions of each of the Intellectual Property Brief’s issues.

Short Circuit

Case-by-case summaries of intellectual property related opinions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Home » Daily Blog, Featured, Patents

Yet Another Mobile Phone Patent Lawsuit: Ericsson vs. Samsung

Submitted by Liliana Burnett on December 2, 2012 – 12:01 AM6458No Commenthttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2012%2F12%2F02%2Fyet-another-mobile-phone-patent-lawsuit-ericsson-vs-samsung%2FYet+Another+Mobile+Phone+Patent+Lawsuit%3A+Ericsson+vs.+Samsung2012-12-02+05%3A01%3A29Liliana+Burnetthttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D6458

On Tuesday, Ericsson, a world leader in mobile phone networking equipment, filed another lawsuit against Samsung (South Korean based) for patent infringement.  The Swedish-based Ericsson filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Tyler, Texas, the same court that found Apple in violation of VirnetX patents last month.  The lawsuit alleges that Samsung infringed on twenty-four of Ericsson’s patents, including patents for GSM, GPRS, 3G, and LTE mobile phones.

Ericsson and Samsung have been negotiating the renewal of an expired license for Ericsson’s telecommunication patents for almost two years.  Samsung, according to Ericsson, has refused to sign an agreement on “fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms,” thus giving them an “unfair competitive advantage over [their] competitors.”  Samsung previously licensed Ericsson’s standard-essential patents in 2001 (renewed in 2007, after a 2006 lawsuit).  Ericsson currently has over 100 agreements with other major mobile phone companies and believes that FRAND licensing creates an “incentive for companies to contribute technology to open standards,” while still maintaining reasonable royalty rates.

The lawsuit is a negotiation tactic, designed to raise the pressure on Samsung; according to Kasim Alfalahi, Ericsson’s chief intellectual-property officer, Ericsson has “turned to litigation as a last resort.”  Samsung stated that Ericsson “demanded prohibitively higher” rates for the patents in negotiations, and it will take all “legal measures to protect against Ericsson’s excessive claims.”  Ironically, Samsung is using the same FRAND argument in their own ongoing litigation against Apple, thus Ericsson has significant material from that litigation to support its higher FRAND royalty rates and sales bans.  Ericsson sued ZTE (a Chinese cellphone maker) alleging similar infringement claims in April 2011, but it was settled later that year.

Hopefully this case will end in a settlement for a renegotiated licensing agreement, rather than a court decision; a win for Ericsson could result in numerous Samsung products being pulled from the shelves in the U.S. since Ericsson is seeking an injunction against all infringing Samsung products.

The case is Ericsson v. Samsung Electronics, 6:12-cv-00984, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas (Tyler).

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare

About the Author:

Author: Liliana Burnett

Liliana Burnett is a full time 2L at American University Washington College of Law. She graduated from Santa Clara University in northern California in 2011, where she majored in History. She is very interested in IP law, international finance law, and maritime law.

Liliana Burnett has written 6 posts for the IPB.

Leave a comment!

Click here to cancel reply »

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Copyright »

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Mr. Brainwash’s works recently joined the increasing number of cases on appropriation art after photographer Dennis Morris sued the street artist for use of his 1977 picture of Sid Vicious.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Patents »

Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay

Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay

The Food and Drug Administration’s recent decision, which reasoned that the drug posed public health and safety concerns, creates serious patent implications with regard to generic drugs.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Trademark »

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme, one of the most coveted skate-inspired clothing brands, is suing women’s clothing brand Married to the Mob and its founder Leah McSweeney for trademark infringement to the tune of $10 million.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Facebook

Accepting Submissions

The IP Brief is currently accepting submissions. We are looking for papers that address a legal topic relating to any area of intellectual property. Please submit completed papers and a cover page with the name and title of the article to ipbrief [at] wcl.american.edu. Any questions can also be sent to this e-mail address.

Blogroll

  • American University Washington College of Law
  • Carrollogos
  • Copyright Blog
  • GamePolitics
  • Intellectual Property Watch
  • PatentlyO
  • Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
  • Spicy IP
  • The TTABlog®
  • ©ollectanea

Tags

Archives

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010

Random Posts

Taking a Bite Out of the Apple: “Appstore” Trademark Infringement Update Viacom Wrests “GTL,” “Twinning” away from The Situation Naked Cowboy’s Trademark Suit Dismissed Oh, That’s Different ... Never mind: USPTO Withdraws Ruling that IPAD MINI is “Merely Descriptive” Yellow, Pink, Blue: Are They All JPK Paris 75: A Geographically Deceptive Mark Trademark Infringement Suit against Latest Pop-Rap Craze Could Be a Sign of Things to Come Best Buy vs. NewEgg: Who Owns “Geek”? UPenn Schools Louis Vuitton in Trademark Law Does Google Lie About Android's “Openness?” Kellogg Reaches Settlement in 'Toucan' Trademark Dispute – Few Feathers Ruffled Trial Wraps Up in Gucci’s Trademark Infringement Suit Against Guess Netflix Changing It Up Again
(refresh random posts)

Latest Video Post

Relatively New Anti-Piracy PSA: Another Analogy Comparison of Piracy to Stealing Cars or an Effective Message?

Recent Posts

  • Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million
  • Appropriating Sid Vicious
  • Chick-Fil-A’s ‘Eat Mor Chikin’ Trumps Kale-Promotion Slogan
  • Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay
  • Oh, That’s Different … Never mind: USPTO Withdraws Ruling that IPAD MINI is “Merely Descriptive”

Twitter

  • No public Twitter messages.
  • Copy / Paste
  • Site Search
  • Wikipedia
  • Google
  • Facts
  • Amazon
  • eBay
  • Outlook
  • Gmail
  • Y! Mail
  • Twitter
  • Search & Share
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia Premium theme by Colorlabs Project
The American University Intellectual Property Brief is licensed by the staff of the American University Intellectual Property Brief under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. IPBrief.net is hosted by Dan Rosenthal. For technical queries, contact dan@danrosenthal.org

Creative Commons License