Entertainment at it's peak. The news is by your side.

The new smartphone patents battlemap


Eight years ago, this blog began publishing battlemaps of vital smartphone patent disputes. Apple and Microsoft are no longer suing Android tool makers at this level, but two vital disputes are ongoing: Apple and, by extension, Intel’s dispute with Qualcomm, which is below fireplace from competitors enforcers spherical the globe; and Huawei v. Samsung, the most huge patent conflict ever between two main Android tool makers.

Which ability I took the time nowadays to scheme up my first battlemap (announced in a put up earlier nowadays) in larger than half of a decade (click on the image to map larger; this put up continues below the document):

You will likely be ready to search out the PDF version (a single-page document) on Scribd.

As the text within the bottom correct corner explains, steady purple traces disguise disputes or conflicts (aggressive exercise or exercise that can also lead to litigation, fair like a regulator fining a firm, which then appeals the decision to a court of legislation); dotted purple traces stamp that there modified into once a dispute, however it has been settled or no longer lower than the events agreed on a ceasefire; and green traces denote partnerships or alliances (including joint protection).

If a line has easiest one arrow, it goes from the birthday party that first went to court (or took identical action) to the target, no matter whether or no longer the opposite birthday party counterclaimed. For an instance, at any time when Huawei introduced offensive patent infringement assertions against Samsung, Samsung countersued, but the historical past of that litigation and the events’ pleadings recommend that Samsung, which basically based entirely totally on a newest filing urged a nil-zero sinful-license at some level, would possess preferred to be left by myself. It is like an offense indubitably representing a roughly protection.

Apple’s patent infringement counterclaims against Qualcomm are a identical memoir, and that is the reason appropriate one of completely different parallels between Apple’s advance to Qualcomm’s conduct and Samsung’s defenses against Huawei. And the vogue Huawei is facing (Pan)Optis Wi-fi, which is placing forward dilapidated Ericsson patents against it, is no longer fully dissimilar to Apple’s and Samsung’s defensive efforts both.

I’m succesful of even possess added companies like Nokia and Ericsson to the listing (beyond PanOptis, which is an Ericsson proxy, or so-known as privateer), but they’ve license deals with the likes of Apple, Samsung, and Huawei in region anyway. So I centered on the ones which might well perchance be presently birthday party to vital conflicts.

In the early fragment of this decade, Apple v. Samsung (appropriate thinking of the presidential veto of an ITC import ban and the vital Supreme Court ruling on manufacture patents in successfully over 100 years), Apple v. Google/Motorola (especially the “Posner case” in Chicago!) and Microsoft v. Google/Motorola were the 2 disputes in which the most keen issues came about. Now we’re coming attain the cease of the 2010s, and the disputes visualized by the battlemap above are the ones to peer.

Factual one final issue on similarities between Apple’s litigation with Qualcomm and Samsung’s with Huawei: I’ve uploaded an Apple retort transient to Scribd that notes Qualcomm dropped its question for a worldwide FRAND determination within the Southern District of California (though Qualcomm aloof wants the U.S. district court to preserve that its demands were FRAND-compliant). This rings a bell in my memory of Huawei fair currently stipulating to a dismissal (without prejudice) of a identical question. And Apple’s transient quotes one thing Defend William H. Orrick acknowledged in Huawei v. Samsung:

“How am I to adjudicate whether or no longer those offers were FRAND, if that determination depends on valuation of global portfolios, and might well easiest be made subsequent to finding every patent loyal and major to the usual?”

This insistence on first and predominant organising the merits of any individual’s identical old-major patents (as against rushing to price-surroundings constant with sheer portfolio size, no matter whether or no longer those patents are infringed and loyal, be it in a court of legislation or in arbitration, which patent holders normally are making an strive to occur below extraordinarily unfair preconditions and parameters) is a basic ingredient of Apple’s positions in its dispute with Qualcomm and Samsung’s protection against Huawei.

On the identical time, Qualcomm and Huawei, despite the indisputable reality that the latter is rumored no longer to be paying patent royalties anymore to the dilapidated, possess been described as “more companions than opponents.” I, too, in most cases focus on over with them collectively as “Qualwei,” though I aloof hope Huawei will sooner or later focal level on its product commercial more so than on outbound patent licensing.

In the end, I possess to level the common sense within the motivate of placing Apple and Intel in a rectangle that is the target of patent court cases introduced by Qualcomm. Aside from China, all patent infringement actions pursued by Qualcomm against Apple (within the ITC and Germany) target Intel-powered smartphones, and I’ve viewed opposition briefs Intel filed with the European Patent Notify of job, making an strive to earn the revocation of particular patents asserted by Qualcomm against Apple–with the identical patent attorneys making nearly identical filings on Apple’s behalf as successfully. Obviously, about a of Qualcomm’s patent infringement claims are technically nearer to Intel’s baseband processor (especially several assertions accusing a Qorvo envelope tracker of infringement) than others, a threshold question that the German judges presiding over just a few Qualcomm v. Apple situations in Munich and Mannheim are in particular attracted to.

Follow @FOSSpatents

Allotment with other mavens via LinkedIn:

Read More

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.