Patent battles

I have been following news around patents lately. I have followed what happens on patent field because I am an inventor that has made some patents and being referenced on some other. The patent situation seem to be quite insane right now, especially on smartphone field.

I can agree the comment Patent law is a very imperfect tool for establishing moral culpability I saw in Linux Magazine. Whether you favor patents or not, it is important to face the fact that patent law is a construct of the business world. Patents protect opportunities for patent holders and restrict opportunities for others. What engineers need to know about patents article tells that most engineers know what a patent is broadly; for example, a bundle of rights related to an invention.

Patents are considered by many parties as vitally important to protecting intellectual property. Plenty of creativity occurs within the technology industry, and without patents, executives say they could never justify spending fortunes on new products. And academics say that some aspects of the patent system, like protections for pharmaceuticals, often function smoothly. It’s clearly demonstrably true that wielding patents to stop people copying protected methods obliges them to come up with new methods of their own. This is why patents are so widely supported by inventors, industry and governments. It’s an irreplaceable component of industrial organisation that produces and propagates invention. In April 2012, in its report on Intellectual Property, the US Patent Office (USPTO) concluded that the entire US economy relies on some form of IP, because virtually every industry either produces or uses it.

Patents have become a technology industry battleground as mobile-phone, tablet and computer makers try to lure consumers with constant improvements to their video and sound. Smartphones have become the focal point for lawsuits and licensing talks because the market is so huge, it is growing so quickly and cutting-edge technology is used in them. There Are 250,000 Active Patents That Impact Smartphones; Representing One In Six Active Patents Today. And this is for for an industry that is certainly less than 1% of US GDP. It definitely appears that there’s something of a “bubble” going on around smartphone patents. The explosive growth of the smartphone market means mobile patents are particularly valuable these days. Major players are increasingly going to court with one another over alleged infringements. It also makes for an astounding minefield for anyone new who wants to enter the space, especially if you don’t have a massive war chest to license or fight in court.

Patents have been a very important tool on industrial era to protect companies. Many people argue that the nation’s patent rules, intended for a mechanical world, are inadequate in today’s digital marketplace. Nowadays patents seem to be especially on on the software side especially old-fashioned and even harming economy. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis recently published a working paper calling for the abolition of patents, saying they do more harm than good. Import bans over patents cause ‘substantial harm,’ FTC says.

Unlike patents for new drug formulas, patents on software often effectively grant ownership of concepts, rather than tangible creations. Today, the patent office routinely approves patents that describe vague algorithms or business methods, without patent examiners demanding specifics about how those calculations occur or how the software operates. The patent office has a reputation for being overworked, understaffed and plagued by employee turnover, and employees concede that some of their work is subjective. As a result, some patents are so broad that they allow patent holders to claim sweeping ownership of seemingly unrelated products built by others. And it happens more and more often. Yes, the system is frequently gamed, it generates avoidable costs, it’s unnecessarily complex, and it creates many absurdities. There Are Too Many Patents In America.

Recent research supports view that patent troll activity is rising — costing America a fortune in wasted legal fees and lost jobs. Patent trolls are a plague. And they are every day armed with more and more patents. ‘Patent trolls’ cost other US bodies $29bn last year, says study. And this figure does not include indirect costs to the defendants’ businesses such as diversion of resources, delays in new products, and loss of market share. Direct costs are large relative to total spending on [research and development], which totalled $247bn in 2009, implying that NPE patent assertations effectively impose a significant tax on investment in innovation. Amazon Founder Jeff Bezos Calls For Governments To End Patent Wars. The problems with the current system are so pervasive, that many companies say, that the courts, lawmakers and Silicon Valley must find their own fixes.

In the smartphone industry alone, according to a Stanford University analysis, as much as $20 billion was spent on patent litigation and patent purchases in the last two years — an amount equal to eight Mars rover missions. Last year spending by Apple and Google on patent lawsuits and unusually big-dollar patent purchases exceeded spending on research and development of new products, according to public filings. Apple’s CEO thinks that patent system is broken in a fundamental way. It allows companies to exploit standards-essential patents — patents that must be licensed in order for products to function according to accepted industry standards. The Patent Wars: Infographic confirms that everyone in the tech world is way too sue-happy.

Apple vs. Samsung patent verdict was a lot of talked about event lately. Apple-Samsung trial has clarified that patents are the “lifeblood of business” and putting powerful short-term legal protections under inventions is overwhelmingly more convincing than any mooted alternative. Apple v. Samsung case highlights money to be made from patent litigation. Linux Magazine editor is amazed at how little all the “authorities” seem to know. Is there a lesson in all this? A huge team of lawyers billing US$ 200 to US$ 800 per hour erected weeks of elegant arguments and a jury thought about the whole thing for 21 hours and 37 minutes. The 109 pages of jury instructions contained 700 questions, which means that jury reached consensus on one point approximately every 33 seconds.

The Apple v. Samsung case really ought to shame the industry. It let a jury, also known as “people off the street”, decide on liability and damages amounts and kept a lot of lawyers in alligator skin shoes. And while it is probably the lawyers that benefited the most from the whole ordeal, no one else is. And I’m not convinced that any of these patents are actually valid. Of course, Samsung argued that Apple also copied, which is no doubt true, but just because Apple got away with it doesn’t make it okay. Apple and Samsung would be better off — and their consumers would be better served — if the tech giants took their epic patent battle out of the courtroom and into the marketplace. The best thing about the case is that it has exposed just how awful the patent situation has become in the US.

A new patent case has just started. Microsoft v Google judge could shape the world in new patent punchup because that could finally tell tech companies how much a standards-essential patent is worth is about to kick off in the US. Microsoft filed a lawsuit in 2010 that challenges Google-owned Motorola over the its use of standards-essential patents (SEP) in court cases. Microsoft and Apple have tried to argue that Samsung and Motorola shouldn’t be allowed to use their SEP in court cases. Both European and US authorities have also been investigating whether any firm should be allowed to get the law involved in SEP but haven’t come to any conclusions yet. Motorola has tried to get 2.25 per cent per device out of Apple and Microsoft. The patents this case is are related to for example to H.264 video coding. Redmond is accusing Motorola of violating its responsibilities to standards organisations to license the patents at fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory rates (FRAND).


  1. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Most popular cellphone processors break Apple’s patents?

    Apple is now blaming Qualcomm for patent infringement. According to the smartphone manufacturer, the Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 and 820 series processors are breaking its patented technologies to optimize processor power consumption.

    Reuters news agency Reuters has reported on Apple’s response to Qualcomm’s right to a lawsuit in July.

    According to Reuters, 800 and 820 series Snapdragon processors are used, for example, in Samsung’s smartphones and in Google’s Pixel phones.


  2. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Qualcomm, Apple Exchange Fresh Salvos

    Qualcomm filed three more patent infringement complaints against Apple Inc., one day after Apple turned the tables and accused Qualcomm of infringing patents held by Apple.

    The latest moves ratchet up the tension in an already red hot feud between the two longtime partners over contractual disputes, withheld payments and accusations of exorbitant licensing fees.

    Qualcomm (San Diego) filed three new patent infringement complaints in U.S. District Court in San Diego, alleging Apple is in violation of an additional 16 patents held by Qualcomm. The fabless chip firm also filed a new complaint against Apple at the U.S. International Trade Commission, arguing that Apple is in violation of five of the same patents.

    Apple filed a $1 billion suit against Qualcomm in January over allegedly withheld royalty rebates. Qualcomm first filed suit against Apple alleging infringement of battery life technology patents in July, around the same time it asked the ITC to ban the importation of Apple iPhones that use Intel modems.

  3. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Qualcomm seeks ban on sales of Intel-based iPhone X in US

    Legal filing with ITC is the latest move in a heated patent infringement battle between Apple and its key chip supplier.

  4. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Mindful of smartphone patent wars, automakers, now among top US patent filers, work together on self-driving IP issues via industry associations to avoid suits — Automakers are learning the mistakes by smartphone companies — Ford, BMW among those looking for licenses without lawsuits

    Carmakers Want Silicon Valley’s Tech Without Its Patent Wars

    Automakers are learning the mistakes by smartphone companies
    Ford, BMW among those looking for licenses without lawsuits

    As automakers turn their vehicles into app-laden computers on wheels, there’s one habit they don’t want to acquire from Silicon Valley: fighting over patents in court.

    Manufacturers from BMW AG to Hyundai Motor Co. to Ford Motor Co. are trying to learn from the smartphone wars, which cost technology companies hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees, as they prepare to revolutionize their vehicles.

    “No sane automaker wants to repeat these wars, where the lawyers were the only winners,” said William Coughlin, chief executive officer of Ford Global Technologies, Ford’s intellectual property arm.

    Automakers have ramped up their patent applications as they compete to roll out crash avoidance systems, on-board Wi-Fi and cars that can drive themselves. To avoid court battles over who gets paid and how much, competitors are banding together to jointly license technology, use non-proprietary software and buying or challenging patents that might be used in lawsuits against them.

    The smartphone wars that began in 2010 were sparked by a clash of the phone and computer industries and pitted iPhone-maker Apple against manufacturers of phones that ran on Android, the operating system owned by Google. Microsoft Corp. also got swept in when it demanded royalties on phones that used Android.

    Technology companies frequently resolve patent disputes — others have been over computer memory, networking and video cards — in court. But the big automakers tend to settle their fights more informally or let suppliers duke it out.

    “They see every day there is litigation and they don’t want that,” said Kasim Alfalahi, head of Avanci LLC, a Dallas-based group that operates the patent pool. “They say, ‘We have looked at this, we have studied this and we would like to avoid it.’ “

  5. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Euro Patent Office fails miserably in key accountability case
    Administrative Council underlines real concerns with European patent regime

    The Administrative Council of the European Patent Office (EPO) has inflamed already heightened tensions within the organization by failing to properly address an important accountability test case.

    The ruling body of the international organization – made up of representatives of European governments – was formally criticized earlier this month for not doing its job and questioning the treatment of a patent judge by EPO management. It then considered the case of patent judge Patrick Corcoran at a closed-door meeting, going through two judgments from the International Labor Organisation (ILO) that ordered Corcoran immediately be reinstated from a three-year suspension.

  6. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Brittany A. Roston / SlashGear:
    Shenzen judge rules Samsung infringed on one of Huawei’s wireless communications patents and must stop selling products using infringing technology in China

    Huawei beats Samsung in lawsuit over wireless patent

  7. Tomi Engdahl says:

    UMC Files Countersuit Against Micron

    United Microelectronics Corp. (UMC) said it filed a lawsuit against Micron Technology subsidiaries in China for patent infringements that are part of a growing wrangle related to memory chips.

    The countersuit comes nearly a month after Micron filed suit against UMC in the U.S.

    As China seeks to establish a domestic semiconductor industry to offset the billions of dollars of chips that it imports annually, legal skirmishes between the U.S. and China have started in the memory segment, where China aims to grab a slice of the business that’s dominated by Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron

  8. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Predicting the 10 Millionth U.S. Patent

    Qualcomm will be granted the ten millionth U.S. patent on June 19, 2018, for a 5G application, an experts predicts.

    Innovation has been the lifeblood of America since the country’s founding fathers established a patent office in 1790. In recent years, the pace of innovation has certainly increased, especially for engineers who design chips and systems.

    We have now reached a point where the 10 millionth utility patent is about to be granted. Only three years ago, the USPTO granted the 9 millionth patent, and you can expect that patent number 11 million will be granted about three years from now.

  9. Tomi Engdahl says:

    What President Trump Doesn’t Know About ZTE

    President Trump is planning to ease penalties on the Chinese telecommunications giant for violating sanctions against Iran and North Korea.

    But what Mr. Trump may not realize is that ZTE is also one of the world’s most notorious intellectual property thieves — perhaps even the most notorious of all.

    A search of PACER reveals that in the U.S. alone, ZTE has been sued for patent infringement an astonishing 126 times just in the last five years. This number is even more shocking when you consider that only a subset of companies who believe their IP rights have been violated by ZTE has the means or the will to spend the millions of dollars needed to wage a multi-year lawsuit in federal courts.

    According to one Chinese tech publication, ZTE has also been sued for patent infringement an additional 100 times in China, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, India, France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and other countries.

  10. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Timothy B. Lee / Ars Technica:
    A history of landmark software patent rulings in the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, and how they have shifted the rules for software patents in the US

    Why a 40-year-old SCOTUS ruling against software patents still matters today
    A controversial ruling limiting software patents has been making a comeback.

  11. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Patent Reforms Need Reform Now

    America ranks #12 in the world tied with Italy in a 2018 scoring of patent systems by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. We used to be #1.

    Twenty years ago, patents still had value. Duly issued U.S. patents were legally valid and patent owners could rely on the presumption of validity if they had to defend them in court. Patent owners could practice, enforce or license them. Patents were personal, private property rights, protected by the copyright clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

    All this has changed. Today, none of this is guaranteed or supported by U.S. law or courts.

    Patent owners frequently must involuntarily defend the validity of duly issued patents, often repeatedly, before panels of unelected executive-branch government employees called administrative patent judges in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). These so-called judges are charged with killing patents in proceedings called inter partes review (IPR), trials conducted without due process, completely devoid of any semblance of the rights, privileges and safeguards patent owners enjoyed under U.S. law for 220+ years–since George Washington signed the Patent Act of 1790 into law.

    America is the world’s foremost economic power largely because of the rights and privileges provided to inventors, innovators, entrepreneurs and investors, secured by title to patents historically considered personal private property rights aka assets.

    Technology doesn’t develop all by itself.

    The America Invents Act (AIA), along with decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, reversed all that. Inventors can no longer rely on patents to obtain financing. Today, patents are liabilities – not assets – often requiring owners to pay millions in legal fees to defend validity challenges under one-sided new IPR rules. Owners of patents that manage to survive IPR often cannot obtain court-ordered injunctions needed to enforce them.

    Historically friendly to small inventor/entrepreneurs, the U.S. today actually thwarts innovation.

    The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is often called the patent death squad because it kills off more than 80% of patents it reviews. Multiple IPR’s are frequently instituted back-to-back. Thus, the PTAB’s effective kill rate is in effect even higher.

    One logical question is whether the USPTO issues patents erroneously 80+% of the time, or whether the PTAB erroneously extinguishes issued patents 80+% of the time. Both can’t be true.

  12. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Vigilante engineer stops Waymo from patenting key lidar technology

    Eric Swildens had no dog in the fight other than intellectual curiosity.

  13. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Microsoft has open sourced its 60,000+ patent portfolio by joining the Open Invention Network.

    ​Microsoft open-sources its patent portfolio

    By joining the Open Invention Network, Microsoft is offering its entire patent portfolio — with the legacy exception of its Windows and desktop application code — to all of the open-source patent consortium’s members.

    Several years ago, I said the one thing Microsoft has to do — to convince everyone in open source that it’s truly an open-source supporter — is stop using its patents against Android vendors. Now, it’s joined the Open Invention Network (OIN), an open-source patent consortium. Microsoft has essentially agreed to grant a royalty-free and unrestricted license to its entire patent portfolio to all other OIN members.

  14. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Thomas Claburn / The Register:
    Google applied for a patent, rejected by USPTO, allegedly based on research shared with its ATAP group during a visit from an MIT doctoral student — Googlers sought patent on tech described during job chat — Jie Qi, cofounder of edu-tech electronics biz Chibitronics …

    The dingo… er, Google stole my patent! Biz boss tells how Choc Factory staff tried to rip off idea from interview

    Googlers sought patent on tech described during job chat

    Jie Qi, cofounder of edu-tech electronics biz Chibitronics, marked the launch of patent education site with her account of how Google tried to patent her research after inviting her to meet with company executives.

    Company Tried to Patent My Work After a Job Interview

    Rewind to March 24, 2014, during the second year of my PhD at the Media Lab. I was invited to visit Google ATAP (Advanced Technology and Projects) to learn about some of their new projects in storytelling. I got to visit their space, meet some of my creative heroes and I shared with them all of my work in interactive books and storytelling.

    What started as just a visit quickly turned into a job interview.

    They’re trying to patent electronic pop-up books

    Two years later, in March 2016 I find out from some paper engineering friends that some of the same people who had interviewed me had also applied for patents on interactive pop-up books with electronics. These patents covered many of the same things that had been discussed, that I’d showed them, with no mention of my or many others’ work known in the field. I found out from a friend who followed a pop-up book blog— luckily someone there notice the applications and was also concerned that google was trying to patent such book technologies, so they publish a blog post about it.

    So what do we do?

    And luckily, because I had experience from the first patent issue, I was able to be much more calm this time around!

    1. Don’t panic.

    Some of the best advice I ever got was to not let worry about legal matters distract you from what matters: doing your work. So after calming down, I…

    2. Make a prior art list. I made a list of all of my own publications involving books and electronics: academic papers, blog posts, videos, media and press. I also included work from others—it doesn’t have to be your own work; anyone’s work will do for prior art!

    3. Look up the patent application status on Public PAIR.

    4. Get legal help! Because these are not things to handle alone, especially if the patents are being filed by a giant company!

    So what did we do?

    First, because it was still a patent application, we could still submit prior art to it. My friend and collaborator Akiba generously did just that by submitting my research paper directly onto the application page.

    Second, and very luckily for me, the director of the Media Lab Joi Ito knew the director of ATAP at the time, Regina. He was able to get in touch with her directly and we were able to quickly schedule a chat to address the situation.

    As part of negotiations, they offered to add me as an inventor on the patent application if it meant the application could stand. I said no

    What I didn’t realize at the time is that there’s actually a huge difference between inventor and assignee.

    An inventor is the one credited with coming up with the idea for an invention. The assignee actually gets the legal rights to the patent.

    The patent application has since been rejected and abandoned

  15. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Crowdfunding Backer Patented My Project

    I never thought about patents much. I just wanted to make stuff and share it with others. Then one day someone else patented my work.

    So what happened? And what did I learn? Well, first off, don’t panic!

    We made sticker LEDs, microcontrollers, sensors, motors and even decorative flower-shaped LED stickers. The stickers worked great with all sorts of conductive materials, including conductive tapes, paints and inks.

    Armed with working prototypes and a process that could be scaled to thousands, bunnie and I launched a crowdfunding campaign to get the word out and see what real educators and creators outside the lab would do with our tools. Our campaign ran from November 2013 to January 2014

    since spun this project out of the lab into Chibitronics, an open source hardware company

    All along the way, we openly published our work online on our websites, our collaborators’ websites, academic research papers and at conferences, through our crowdfunding campaign, and in the media (e.g. Wired and Make). We purposely did not patent the work because we wanted the idea to spread into the wild

    Someone patented our work!

    Fast forward two years later to March 2016. Imagine our surprise when we receive the following email telling us that someone had patented a core part of our project: LED stickers.

    Luckily for us, a colleague happened to see news of the patent on a LinkedIn feed

    Here’s the irony of the situation: Chinese American immigrant student (that’s me!) from MIT goes to Shenzhen, China to create an educational toolkit. But the output of such work is patented by an American businesswoman from Colorado who promotes the “USA” origin of the work.

    How could that happen? The sad truth is that patents are approved all that time that probably shouldn’t be.

    Patent examiners, the people who look through patent applications, have a tough job in front of them. They only have about 12 hours for the entire patent review, which includes reading and understanding the patent, searching for prior art and writing up their findings.

    As a result, examiners for the most part seem to only look at existing patents, which are written in very specific legal language, to speed up their search. So if your work isn’t in one of these patent databases—examiners usually use the USPTO patent archive or google patents—it’s very possible your work won’t be discovered by the examiner.

    While other non-patent forms of work—like research papers or blog posts or crowdfunding campaign videos— technically count as prior art and are useful in court, practically these probably will not make their way to the patent examiner. There is simply too much information out in the world and not enough resources

    Can’t you invalidate the patent?

    Unfortunately, once a patent gets issued things get much more complicated and expensive. The cheapest option would be for us to go to the USPTO with our prior art list and invalidate the patent though a process called an inter partes review (IPR). But such a process typically costs between $300,000 and $600,000 to file due to legal fees. In fact, it’s much more than the cost of getting the patent in the first place!

    How are you so calm?

    Things seem fine now but will this sleeping patent come back to bite us one day? Possibly. Apparently it’s common for people to wait until a company is big enough before going after them with a lawsuit, because only then does the company have enough money for the lawsuit to be worth it. However, even if Jill does decide to take us to court over patent infringement, there is so much evidence of prior art on our side that we would simply invalidate her LED stickers patent.

    What I learned

    The scariest thing to me about having a backer patent my crowdfunded project, is that now releasing my work out into the open internet suddenly feels like I’m leaving it vulnerable to be patented by anyone on the web. Ironically, the better the project, the more viral it becomes and the more people will see it, making it more likely that one of those people is a patent troll who might come after the work.

  16. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Ina Fried / Axios:
    Chinese court issues a preliminary injunction against Apple for infringing Qualcomm patents, banning sale and import of iPhones 6s to X in China; Apple appeals — A Chinese court has banned the sale of a number of recent iPhone models citing infringement of two Qualcomm patents, the San Diego chipmaker said on Monday.

    China bans many iPhone models in Qualcomm patent dispute

    A Chinese court has banned the sale of a number of recent iPhone models citing infringement of two Qualcomm patents, the San Diego chipmaker said on Monday.

    Why it matters: The preliminary injunction blocks the sale and import of iPhones into China, but not the manufacture or export of the devices, so the direct impact is limited to the domestic Chinese market. Still, it represents a significant disruption to Apple’s business and could bring the two parties to the negotiating table in their long litigation war. Apple said Monday it has filed a request for reconsideration with the court, the first step in appealing the preliminary injunction.‬


    The order prevents the sale and import of the iPhone 6s, 6s Plus, 7, 7 Plus, iPhone 8, 8 Plus and iPhone X.
    The injunction relates to a pair of patents, one covering the way applications are managed on a smartphone and the other about how customers adjust and reformat photos.

  17. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Lauren Feiner / CNBC:
    Apple says it will stop selling iPhone 7 and iPhone 8 in its 15 retail stores across Germany after Qualcomm was granted an injunction by a Munich court — – Last week, a Chinese court ordered an injunction against Apple over an alleged patent violation filed by chipmaker Qualcomm.

    Apple will stop selling some iPhone models in its stores in Germany following ruling in Qualcomm patent case

    Last week, a Chinese court ordered an injunction against Apple over an alleged patent violation filed by chipmaker Qualcomm.
    Now, a Munich court has ordered an injunction against Apple for another claim in Germany.
    Apple says it will stop selling the iPhone 7 and iPhone 8 at its stores in Germany. But all iPhone models will be available at third-party retailers in the country.

  18. Tomi Engdahl says:

    The FTC’s case accusing Qualcomm of abusing a monopoly in mobile chips via its intellectual property licensing practices kicked off in court on Friday — SAN JOSE, California – (Reuters) – The U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust case accusing Qualcomm Inc (QCOM.O) …

    Qualcomm kicks off crucial fight with U.S. antitrust regulator

  19. Tomi Engdahl says:

    IBM, Samsung Lead Patent Rankings
    U.S. patent awards dip 3.5% in 2018

  20. Tomi Engdahl says:

    EEVblog #1167 – Let’s Talk About Patents

    A quick chat about Innovation Patents vs Invention Patents for another video quickly turned into 30 minutes of general talk about patents, the patent system, patent applications, patent attorneys, over-unity free-energy quackery, the claims and examination process and a host of other stuff, with patent attorney Dr Phil Burns.

  21. Tomi Engdahl says:

    US Military Files Patent for Room-Temperature Superconductor

    It could be the energy breakthrough we’ve been waiting for.

  22. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Apple infringed three Qualcomm patents, jury finds

    Mobile phone chip supplier Qualcomm Inc on Friday won a legal victory against iPhone maker Apple Inc, with a jury in federal court in San Diego finding that Apple owes Qualcomm about $31 million for infringing three of its patents.

  23. Tomi Engdahl says:

    In Shift, Asia Grabs Lead in International Patent Applications

  24. Tomi Engdahl says:

    U.S. Court Finds Apple Infringed Qualcomm IP

    A U.S. federal court found that several iPhone models infringe on patents held by Qualcomm, a major setback for Apple in the patent fight between the two companies that has been unfolding in several jurisdictions throughout the world.

  25. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Apple, Qualcomm gird for next phase of patent battle after mixed U.S. rulings

    Split decisions on Tuesday by a U.S. government panel in acrimonious patent disputes between iPhone-maker Apple and chip supplier Qualcomm left their battle lines largely unchanged ahead of a U.S Federal Trade Commission ruling and a major trial next month.

  26. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Q’comm Booking $4.5B in Apple Deal
    Windfall comes amid continuing smartphone weakness in China

    Qualcomm will book a whopping $4.5-$4.7 billion in third quarter revenues as part of the litigation settlement it struck with Apple in mid-April. The funds include both past due patent royalties Apple will pay and Qualcomm’s release from obligations to the iPhone designer and its contract manufacturers.

  27. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Takashi Kawakami / Nikkei:
    Samsung and Huawei have agreed to settle their three-year dispute over smartphone patents, likely to refocus their energies on the global slowdown in demand — Move to settle patent dispute comes as global sales slow — GUANGZHOU — Samsung Electronics and Huawei Technologies …

    Samsung and Huawei drop lawsuits in latest smartphone truce

    Move to settle patent dispute comes as global sales slow


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *