Ericsson brings 5G patent infringement battle to the UK

AppleInsider

Ericsson is extending its legal battle with Apple over 5G patents, with new filings indicating the patent infringement fight will also be taking place in the United Kingdom.

In early 2022, Ericsson and Apple scaled up their disagreements over 5G patents that Ericsson believes Apple infringed with the iPhone and other products. In the latest development in the affair, Ericsson is taking the war to the U.K.

Ericsson, represented by law firm Taylor Wessing, filed with the High Court of Justice for England and Wales on June 6 over patents, as spotted by FOSS Patents. It is split into two cases, with HP-2022-000013 listing Apple Retail UK as its defendant, and case HP-2022-000014 including Apple Retail UK, Apple Distribution International, and Apple Inc.

The two cases are designated as "Part 7" claims, which relate to patents and registered designs, and have been assigned to the Patents Court. It is unclear exactly what patents are included in the suit, but it it is reckoned they could be standard-essential patents.

The fresh filings arrive after the two sides failed to find a resolution in mediation with the Eastern District of Texas. It is possible that the U.K. suits are in retaliation, as firms in mediation typically don't want to be observed as being hostile to other parties.

The UK cases now means the Ericsson-Apple 5G patent battle is being fought in at least six countries, including the U.S. ITC, Brazil, Colombia, Germany, and the Netherlands.

Ericsson's filings aren't the only ones Apple has to contend with in the U.K. It is currently in the middle of another patent lawsuit against Optis in the country, again over wireless patents.

Read on AppleInsider

rob53

It's interesting how governments demand Apple change its charging port to USB-C, which is standard's based, then allow Ericsson to sue Apple over the use of a cellular standard. How can a government demand a company use a standard while allowing one company with a standards-based patent force another company to pay for its use? 

As for using the corrupt eastern district of Texas, that shows that Ericsson really has no basis in the lawsuit. 

mplsp

rob53 said:

It's interesting how governments demand Apple change its charging port to USB-C, which is standard's based, then allow Ericsson to sue Apple over the use of a cellular standard. How can a government demand a company use a standard while allowing one company with a standards-based patent force another company to pay for its use? 

As for using the corrupt eastern district of Texas, that shows that Ericsson really has no basis in the lawsuit. 

What are you talking about? USB C is an open standard so there are no patent issues and there are no governmental requirements to use 5G. The only thing forcing Apple to use 5G is the market. 

What I don’t get is why Ericsson is suing Apple. And not Qualcomm. Since iPhones use QC modems it seems like any patent infringement should be on them, not Apple. 

danox

MplsP said:

rob53 said:

It's interesting how governments demand Apple change its charging port to USB-C, which is standard's based, then allow Ericsson to sue Apple over the use of a cellular standard. How can a government demand a company use a standard while allowing one company with a standards-based patent force another company to pay for its use? 

As for using the corrupt eastern district of Texas, that shows that Ericsson really has no basis in the lawsuit. 

What are you talking about? USB C is an open standard so there are no patent issues and there are no governmental requirements to use 5G. The only thing forcing Apple to use 5G is the market. 

What I don’t get is why Ericsson is suing Apple. And not Qualcomm. Since iPhones use QC modems it seems like any patent infringement should be on them, not Apple. 

FRAND patients were never anything but a scam.

rotateleftbyte

MplsP said:

What I don’t get is why Ericsson is suing Apple. And not Qualcomm. Since iPhones use QC modems it seems like any patent infringement should be on them, not Apple. 

That is down to the old 'Double Dipping' play. SCO (remember them...?) were past masters at it.
QC should paid Ericsson their part of the patent fee so that they can use devices with E's patents inside. 
Apple should have paid QC the next patent license which should have been passed onto Ericsson. This allows Apple to use the QC devices in their products.
If the price agreed between QC and Ericsson did not include the Apple fee then ... you get lawsuits flying all over the place.
It could also be because the patent FRAND sum is lower than what the patent holder wants.
That's as I see it. My knowledge is a bit rusty as it dates from when SCO were playing this game in the early 2000's. The "Groklaw" site has some excellent descriptions of this double-dipping and why it takes place. 

gatorguy

For those who really aren't sure what this is about but want to learn, or assume they already know but want to verify, I strongly suggest reading the FossPatents article link in blue within the AI write-up.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/06/further-escalation-in-ericsson-v-apple.html

gatorguy

This from a similar article:

"Ericsson is accusing Apple of infringing its patents in respect of the 5G chips used in current iPhones. That’s because Apple used to pay royalty fees for the use of the patented tech, but then failed to renew the licenses when they expired. It’s believed Apple was hoping to negotiate a better deal for the 5G licenses, after earlier reaching agreement on 2G, 3G, and 4G patented technology.

Things got heated when Apple sued Ericsson in December of last year, claiming that the Swedish company violated FRAND terms. This is international law that requires standards-essential patents (technology without which it is impossible to make a smartphone) on terms which are fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory. In other words, Apple claimed that Ericsson was charging too much for the patent license fees.

Ericsson in turn accused Apple of wasting court resources by forcing unnecessary litigation on two fronts. Apple hit back by filing an unrelated patent infringement claim against Ericsson.

Both companies are trying to get import bans placed on products made by the other: the iPhone on one side, and a mobile base station on the other.

Since there is no dispute that Ericsson does own the patents, and Apple is currently infringing them by not renewing its licenses, experts say that the Swedish company is likely to succeed in achieving an injunction against the import of iPhones in one or more countries."

crowley

rob53 said:

It's interesting how governments demand Apple change its charging port to USB-C, which is standard's based, then allow Ericsson to sue Apple over the use of a cellular standard. How can a government demand a company use a standard while allowing one company with a standards-based patent force another company to pay for its use? 

As for using the corrupt eastern district of Texas, that shows that Ericsson really has no basis in the lawsuit. 

Different governments, different standards, and different licensing obligations.

darth_kalel

rob53 said:

It's interesting how governments demand Apple change its charging port to USB-C, which is standard's based, then allow Ericsson to sue Apple over the use of a cellular standard. How can a government demand a company use a standard while allowing one company with a standards-based patent force another company to pay for its use? 

As for using the corrupt eastern district of Texas, that shows that Ericsson really has no basis in the lawsuit. 

Apple is already switching to USB-C on their own. We have known this for a long time now. The legislation you are talking about has zero effect. Maybe educate yourself.

darth_kalel

crowley said:

rob53 said:

It's interesting how governments demand Apple change its charging port to USB-C, which is standard's based, then allow Ericsson to sue Apple over the use of a cellular standard. How can a government demand a company use a standard while allowing one company with a standards-based patent force another company to pay for its use? 

As for using the corrupt eastern district of Texas, that shows that Ericsson really has no basis in the lawsuit. 

Different governments, different standards, and different licensing obligations.

Also Apple is switching to USB-C on the iPhone on their own. Governmental regulations and legislation has nothing to do with it. It was happening with it without it. And we have known this for a long time.