JD Journal’s Post

𝚂𝚊𝚖𝚜𝚞𝚗𝚐 𝙵𝚒𝚗𝚎𝚍 $𝟷𝟿𝟸 𝙼𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚒𝚘𝚗 𝚏𝚘𝚛 𝚆𝚒𝚛𝚎𝚕𝚎𝚜𝚜 𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚛𝚐𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝙿𝚊𝚝𝚎𝚗𝚝 𝙸𝚗𝚏𝚛𝚒𝚗𝚐𝚎𝚖𝚎𝚗𝚝 A federal jury in the Eastern District of Texas has ordered Samsung Electronics to pay $192 million in damages for infringing on wireless charging patents held by Scramoge Technology Ltd. The verdict came after a week-long trial. Scramoge Technology, an Irish company, accused Samsung of infringing on three of its patents related to wireless charging technology. These patents cover methods for improving the efficiency and safety of wireless charging systems. The jury found that Samsung had willfully infringed on all three patents. The $192 million award ranks among the largest patent verdicts in the U.S. this year. Samsung is likely to appeal the decision. This case underscores the ongoing legal disputes in the tech industry over intellectual property rights, particularly in rapidly evolving areas like wireless charging technology. The verdict could affect other smartphone manufacturers using similar wireless charging technologies. #SamsungPatentCase #WirelessChargingTechnology #PatentInfringement #TechLitigation #ScramogeTechnology

#Samsung and #DTMobile settle patent dispute According to news released on July 2, Samsung Electronics and DT Mobile have reached a settlement regarding their patent dispute. The two companies submitted a joint stipulation of dismissal to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which has officially terminated all related litigation. The dispute between Samsung and DT Mobile began in 2023 when DT Mobile filed lawsuits in China and Germany, accusing Samsung of patent infringement. In response, Samsung filed a countersuit in the United States, seeking to invalidate DT Mobile's patents. In April 2024, the Munich Regional Court in Germany ruled that Samsung had infringed on DT Mobile's standard essential patents and granted an injunction request from DT Mobile. The ruling required Samsung to pay compensation for nearly all smartphones sold in Germany since August 21, 2021, and to destroy the relevant models in the market. The latest news indicates that both parties have now settled, ending the global litigation. For more: https://lnkd.in/gmEquWaH

Samsung Electronics is seeking a California federal court’s judgment that its forthcoming Galaxy Ring doesn’t infringe five Oura Health patents covering “features common to virtually all smart rings.” The Finnish company’s pattern of suing competitors is part of a “declared strategy of asserting infringement against all entrants into the smart ring market” and presents an “imminent risk to Samsung and the sale of its Galaxy Ring product,” according to a complaint filed Thursday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Samsung, based in South Korea, said it expects to start mass production of the device by mid-June for an August launch in the US. It seeks a declaration that its Galaxy Ring, which works in tandem with the Samsung Health app, doesn’t infringe US Patent Nos. 10,842,429; 11,868,178; 11,868,179; 10,893,833; and 11,599,147. The Oura patents relate to basic functionalities found in most smart rings, such as sensors, electronics, and batteries. “Each and every time a major competitor has developed and/or released a product that competes in the smart ring market, Oura has filed a patent infringement action against that competitor,” Samsung’s complaint said. Samsung in January teased the new device at a product-launch event in San Jose, Calif. That very day, Oura CEO Tom Hale told TechCrunch his company “has the strongest IP portfolio—in both hardware and software—for the smart ring form factor,” according to the complaint. Oura’s latest rings start at about $300, according to the company’s website. The Galaxy Ring includes features such as heart-rate monitoring, sleep tracking, and an “Energy Score” that assesses the wearer’s readiness based on various health metrics, the complaint said. Oura has alleged in earlier litigation targeting other companies that the same or similar features in competing devices infringe its patents, Samsung said. The U.S. International Trade Commission on April 12 launched a probe based on Oura’s March complaint alleging smart rings by India-based ULTRAHUMAN HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED; China-based Guangdong Jiu Zhi Technology Co. and its US subsidiary RingConn; and the French company Circular SAS infringe two or more of the ‘178, ‘179, and ‘429 patents. The ITC expects to issue a final initial determination next April 18 and set a target date in August 2025 for completing the investigation. Click for complete coverage, including details about the asserted patents and when Bloomberg Law estimates they'll expire.

Has Germany become the home of smartphone patent lawsuits? 🔨 Reflecting a little this week, there is quite a long list of patent litigations that have resulted in bans in Germany over the last couple of years. Just a few I could think of (some of which have been resolved) include: 2024 – OnePlus from a lawsuit by InterDigital 2024 – Lenovo cellular products (incl. Motorola) from a lawsuit by InterDigital 2023 – vivo from lawsuit by Nokia 2022 – OPPO & OnePlus from lawsuit by Nokia 2022 – HMD Global from lawsuit by VoiceAgeEVS LLC 2021 – TCL from lawsuit by LG I've probably even missed some... Intellectual property rights are a common but important topic in the smartphone industry. And Germany has become a sweet spot for patent holders in search of a favourable court system that also has potential to add significant pressure for vendors. The goal is of course not too cause too much damage on the vendors - the goal is normally to eventually get paid... Germany is considered large enough to add pressure, but not too large in vendor's total global operations.

"Nokia and HONOR Sign Patent Cross-License Agreement for 5G Technologies" Nokia has signed a patent cross-license agreement with Honor covering their fundamental inventions in 5G and other cellular technologies. The terms of the agreement remain confidential. This marks Nokia's fourth major litigation-free smartphone agreement in the past twelve months and emphasizes the strength of Nokia's patent portfolio and contributions to cellular standards and other technologies. Honor, a leading player in the Chinese smartphone market, acknowledges the importance of reasonable IP value and commitment to innovation in enabling a smart life across various scenarios and channels. Nokia's extensive patent portfolio, built on over €140 billion in R&D investment since 2000, includes around 20,000 patent families, with over 6,000 declared essential to 5G. IPQuad Partners #Nokia #Honor #PatentAgreement #5GTechnologies #Innovation #Smartphones #TechnologyNews #PatentCrossLicense #IntellectualProperty Source: https://lnkd.in/gmWuEp8R

Great news for IdeaHub in principle. But I wonder how much will be left to share aftre payment of all legal fees and -most likely- litigation funding expenses. A typical budget for a full trial is usually between 5-10 M and the verdict here is at 7M. And those were standard essential patents! ________________________________ On April 1, 2024, an Eastern District of Texas jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs Pantech Corporation and Pantech Wireless, LLC, awarding against OnePlus $7.41M for infringement of three standard essential patents (SEPs) and $2.85M for infringement of the other two wireless communications patents-in-suit. Two weeks earlier, the same two plaintiffs filed a second suit against OnePlus in the same district (5:24-cv-00038), there alleging infringement of eight additional patents through the provision of smartphones and other devices compliant with the LTE and/or 5G cellular networking standards. (source: RPX)

In a marathon session, a Federal Circuit panel (Lourie, Prost, Stark) heard oral argument in four separate appeals that relate to Neonode's patent infringement suits against Apple and Samsung. Among the appeals is Neonode's challenge to a Judge Albright ruling that one of its two asserted patents was invalid due to indefiniteness. Unmentioned in my article are some of the unusual features to these cases that got discussed in passing during the 2 hours of arguments. The prosecution history for at least one of the two patents was 8 years-plus, and a key amendment to the first claim, to overcome an examiner rejection, as understanding of the nascent technology and terminology for touchscreen phones was moving quickly (and a faster clip, as Samsung argued, than the slow-paced prosecution). On the other hand, Samsung licensed one of these patents for four years, and used an early phone model made by Neonode Inc. that arguably implemented some of the patented technology to defend itself in a patent suit brought by Apple, which are tough facts to work around as a patent infringement defendant. A final note: Neonode's lawyer Phil Graves went the whole 2 hours, though seemed sharp and in command of the four appendices, despite the grueling task. I don't know Graves, but presumably, he'll sleep well tonight. https://lnkd.in/eujSGxMV

📱💼 𝐁𝐢𝐠 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐡 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝! OnePlus has been ordered to pay Pantech $10.26 million for patent infringement related to 5G technology. As legal battles heat up, what impact do you think this will have on the smartphone industry? Share your thoughts! 💬 https://shorturl.at/SquFn #IPNews #PatentLaw #OnePlus #IntellectualProperty #PatentInfringement

#Huawei Sues #MediaTek for Patent Infringement Huawei Technologies has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against chipmaker MediaTek in a local Chinese court, as reported last Thursday. MediaTek confirmed the lawsuit the following day, stating that it would not significantly impact its operations but declined to provide further details. An insider revealed that Huawei and MediaTek began negotiations over patent fees two to three years ago. However, discussions recently collapsed due to pricing disagreements. Huawei proposed licensing fees based on terminal device prices, which MediaTek found excessively high, leading to the lawsuit. IP analysts believe this lawsuit might suggest a significant shift in Huawei's patent licensing strategy. Traditionally, Huawei has targeted terminal device manufacturers for patent fees. This lawsuit indicates a potential new approach where Huawei may seek fees from component-level suppliers like MediaTek, shifting the licensing tier from the "terminal level" to the "component level." If Huawei's strategy becomes widespread, it could transform the patent licensing landscape in the tech industry. Smartphone manufacturers like Apple, Samsung, Xiaomi, OPPO, and vivo might experience reduced licensing costs as the financial burden shifts to chip suppliers such as MediaTek and Qualcomm. This potential change could significantly impact both the supply chain and consumers, potentially lowering smartphone costs and altering industry dynamics. Photo:dealmoon For more: https://lnkd.in/gkVPBets

Regardless of your view on the Apple watch saga at the ITC, it’s hard to understand techdirt’s conclusion that the ITC is a “loophole” because it has the ability to issue injunctions. A patent by its nature is a right to exclude, which is precisely what the ITC does. In fact, it does so more efficiently and predictably than any other forum. The argument appears to be that patent holders should not have the ability to utilize two procedures (ITC and Federal Court) in parallel, each seeking an injunction on patent matters. What the author appears to miss is that patent holders cannot do this. The only reason both cases would occur in parallel, is if the alleged infringer chooses not to stop the Federal Court proceeding, which it can do as a matter of right.