Apple, Qualcomm slapped with patent infringement lawsuit targeting 5G chips
Apple and Qualcomm have been hit with a lawsuit alleging that certain 5G technologies used by both companies infringe on an RF calibration patent.
Credit: Qualcomm
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas Thursday, focuses on a handful of Qualcomm 5G wireless transceivers. It also goes after the iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 Pro, which incorporates the infringing transceiver technology because they use Qualcomm 5G modems.
Specifically, the lawsuit names Qualcomm's SMR526, SDR865, and SDX55M as the infringing products.
The plaintiff in the case is non-practicing entity Red Rock, which owns U.S. Patent No. 7,346,313. That patent outlines a system for calibrating the balance of in-phase (I) and quadrature (Q) signals in radio transceivers.
According to the complaint, both Apple and Qualcomm had prior knowledge of the '313 patent. In Qualcomm's case, it alleges that the company received notice of the existence of the patent at least three times between 2008 and 2011.
As such, the lawsuit says that the actions taken by Apple and Qualcomm "have been, and continue to be, committed in a knowing willful, and egregious manner and constitute willful infringement of" the intellectual property.
The complaint seeks a jury trial and a long list of prayers for relief, including enjoinments barring Apple and Qualcomm from infringing on the '313 patent, damages, and royalty payments.
Credit: Qualcomm
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas Thursday, focuses on a handful of Qualcomm 5G wireless transceivers. It also goes after the iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 Pro, which incorporates the infringing transceiver technology because they use Qualcomm 5G modems.
Specifically, the lawsuit names Qualcomm's SMR526, SDR865, and SDX55M as the infringing products.
The plaintiff in the case is non-practicing entity Red Rock, which owns U.S. Patent No. 7,346,313. That patent outlines a system for calibrating the balance of in-phase (I) and quadrature (Q) signals in radio transceivers.
According to the complaint, both Apple and Qualcomm had prior knowledge of the '313 patent. In Qualcomm's case, it alleges that the company received notice of the existence of the patent at least three times between 2008 and 2011.
As such, the lawsuit says that the actions taken by Apple and Qualcomm "have been, and continue to be, committed in a knowing willful, and egregious manner and constitute willful infringement of" the intellectual property.
The complaint seeks a jury trial and a long list of prayers for relief, including enjoinments barring Apple and Qualcomm from infringing on the '313 patent, damages, and royalty payments.
Comments
I would understand if you claim copyright and patents are bad by nature, but if you want that kind of IP protection, you also need to allow transfer of ownership.
I know some very qualified lawyers who I think would laugh at this suggestion. You're suggesting that the entirety of IP law is unconstitutional on freedom of speech grounds? LOL. Good luck with that. Apple wouldn't touch it because it's a ridiculous argument that would be laughed out of court. It's not a defense. I mean no offense with that comment, of course.
Now, in my view we do need patent/IP reform. These troll NPEs have made a mess of the entire system. They are hurting consumers by clogging up the system and forcing true innovators to spend billions on legal fees, damages, etc. They don't make anything. They just own ideas they claim are the ones used in other products.
When Apple buys the chipset from Qualcomm, Qualcomm should include an implicit guarantee that the IP included on the chip is free from IP entanglements. Qualcomm should indemnify all its customers from such third party litigation - especially considering how Qualcomm double dips and charges customers for the chip, and then a separate license for the IP (which is a percentage of the entire device).
The fact that they included Apple in the suit just proves the plaintiffs are blood sucking leeches.
So why shouldn't patents only be licensable and defendable with tangible implementations as well?
Doesn't need to be full stack just minimal software or FGA setup they show inputs can produce output as described.