2065438+In May 2006, Huawei sued Samsung in the United States and China, demanding to protect its wireless communication invention patent. Huawei claims that the plaintiff has a large number of necessary patents for wireless communication standards, including No.2010137731.2 (method for feeding back ACK/NACK information in carrier aggregation, base station and user equipment) and No.201/kloc-0. Without the plaintiff's permission, the defendant infringed his patent right by manufacturing, selling, promising to sell or importing, and failed to follow the FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) principle in the license negotiation, which was obviously wrong, and requested the court to order the defendant to immediately stop the patent infringement involved.
Samsung argued that there were no allegations of patent infringement by Huawei. Huawei failed to fulfill its fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory obligations in the licensing negotiations of standard essential patents, and Samsung did not have obvious faults in the licensing negotiations. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim should be rejected.
This case involves two major issues, one is FRAND, and the other is the identification and appraisal of technical facts. Regarding FRAND, it involves the problem that the two parties can't reach a license agreement when negotiating the cross-licensing of standard essential patents, and who is at fault between the plaintiff and Samsung. The identification of technical facts relates to whether the patent requested by the plaintiff in this case is a necessary patent of 4G standard, whether the defendant has infringed the plaintiff's patent right, and whether the defendant's defense claim can be established.
The court held that Samsung's production and sales of the corresponding 4G smart terminal products in China will definitely use Huawei's two standard essential patented technologies. Therefore, after Huawei obtained two invention patents, Samsung implemented the plaintiff's two patented technologies in China without permission, infringing the plaintiff's patent rights. Finally, the court announced that Samsung immediately stopped infringing Huawei's patent rights in the form of manufacturing sales and promised sales, and rejected Huawei's other claims. The litigation acceptance fee 1000 yuan shall be borne by Samsung. If you refuse to accept the judgment, Samsung can appeal according to law.
In the face of Huawei's patent litigation, Samsung's counterattack seems to be somewhat "emotional"
Samsung is very emotional about being sued by Huawei for patent infringement. 2065438+On July 22, 2006, Samsung sued Beijing Hengtongda Department Store Co., Ltd. and Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. for patent infringement in Beijing Intellectual Property Court, and demanded compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses of 80.5 million yuan in two cases, accounting for 65.438+0.6 1 100 million yuan.
Samsung's quick response litigation compensation fee is not much, just twice as much as Huawei's litigation compensation, which fully shows Samsung's dissatisfaction and pride. However, the progress of the case did not lead to the strong patent reserves of Samsung and Huawei beginning to show their advantages in this giant "war".
The data shows that Huawei has made remarkable achievements in the field of patent inventions in recent years, and its strength has been significantly improved, which is also the basis for Huawei to initiate a lawsuit. Judging from the current trial process, two patents have been declared invalid, one has gone through the invalidation procedure, and Samsung is already at a disadvantage. Prior to this, Huawei also won the case of Quanzhou v. Samsung.