Apple files 4G LTE countersuit in ITC case against HTC
Apple on Thursday filed suit against HTC over alleged infringement of certain standard-essential 4G LTE patents as part of an ongoing U.S. International Trade Commission case involving the two companies.
The suit was filed as a counterclaim to HTC's second ITC complaint against Apple and brings FRAND contract and antitrust assertions against the Chinese handset maker, reports FOSS Patents.
Because counterclaims cannot be adjudicated by the ITC, counterclaimants must file their suits in federal court and Apple chose to bring the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Alexandria Division.
Apple's FRAND counterclaim is one of many leveled by the company in other ITC cases like the ongoing federal suit against Samsung currently being heard in California. Last year Apple filed FRAND counterclaims in the Western District of Wisconsin as part of the company's ITC case against Motorola.
It seems as though the most recent counterclaims are similar to those raised against Samsung and Motorola, and assert the following:
In May, HTC "specifically accused Apple of infringing the ADC patents based solely on the fact that Apple devices contain baseband chips that implement the LTE standard." Apple argues that "[i]n light of the purported essentiality of the '219 and '944 patents, those patents should have been disclosed by HTC and ADC to the relevant standards setting organizations ('SSOs'), and commitments to license on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms ('FRAND') should have been made for their purported inclusion in standards and in evolving standards under development."
Apple goes on to claim that HTC and ADC both conspired to conceal the patents from the SSOs and "purposefully evaded any obligations to license under FRAND terms, a course of conduct HTC continues even as it participates in work on evolution of these same standards."
FOSS Patent's Florian Mueller believes that the tactic of using 4G LTE-essential patents will become more prevalent in the future as lawmakers and regulators become increasingly concerned over the abuse of stand-essential patents.
The suit was filed as a counterclaim to HTC's second ITC complaint against Apple and brings FRAND contract and antitrust assertions against the Chinese handset maker, reports FOSS Patents.
Because counterclaims cannot be adjudicated by the ITC, counterclaimants must file their suits in federal court and Apple chose to bring the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Alexandria Division.
Apple's FRAND counterclaim is one of many leveled by the company in other ITC cases like the ongoing federal suit against Samsung currently being heard in California. Last year Apple filed FRAND counterclaims in the Western District of Wisconsin as part of the company's ITC case against Motorola.
It seems as though the most recent counterclaims are similar to those raised against Samsung and Motorola, and assert the following:
- breach of contract based on standards-related misconduct
- fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud
- promissory estoppel
- conspiracy under ? 1 of the Sherman Act (the cartel paragraph of U.S. federal antitrust law)
- violation of ? 2 of the Sherman Act (the monopoly abuse paragraph of U.S. federal antitrust law)
- violation of 15 U.S.C. ? 8 (illegal restraint of import trade)
- violation of Virginia state antitrust law
In May, HTC "specifically accused Apple of infringing the ADC patents based solely on the fact that Apple devices contain baseband chips that implement the LTE standard." Apple argues that "[i]n light of the purported essentiality of the '219 and '944 patents, those patents should have been disclosed by HTC and ADC to the relevant standards setting organizations ('SSOs'), and commitments to license on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms ('FRAND') should have been made for their purported inclusion in standards and in evolving standards under development."
Apple goes on to claim that HTC and ADC both conspired to conceal the patents from the SSOs and "purposefully evaded any obligations to license under FRAND terms, a course of conduct HTC continues even as it participates in work on evolution of these same standards."
FOSS Patent's Florian Mueller believes that the tactic of using 4G LTE-essential patents will become more prevalent in the future as lawmakers and regulators become increasingly concerned over the abuse of stand-essential patents.
Comments
[URL=http://forums.appleinsider.com/image/id/169053/width/600/height/399][IMG]http://forums.appleinsider.com/image/id/169053/width/600/height/399[/IMG][/URL]
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn
Mr Chou, we have a problem.
Lock and load, baby!
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn
Mr Chou, we have a problem.
Apple should aim it at Samsung, not HTC. Samsung is the largest maker of smartphones / android based smartphones - HTC, along with Nokia / RIM, will continue to lose marketshare to Apple / Samsung with/without all the needless litigation.
I'm also guessing that this particular lawsuit is based on a LTE patent purchased from Nortel, not developed in-house. It would be quite interesting if Apple can launch a LTE device successfully without infringing on Samsung's LTE patents, the largest pool of such patents by a single firm - at 12% of all LTE patents granted worldwide.
It seems Mr. Cook is serious about Steve Jobs' intentions regarding Android.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
It seems Mr. Cook is serious about Steve Jobs' intentions regarding Android.
Good. Some things shouldn't change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
Apple should aim it at Samsung, not HTC. Samsung is the largest maker of smartphones / android based smartphones - HTC, along with Nokia / RIM, will continue to lose marketshare to Apple / Samsung with/without all the needless litigation.
Haven't they already done that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Good. Some things shouldn't change.
Not sure I really care about a bunch of money going towards lawyers instead of R&D. People root for Apple to ban phones until the iPhone itself is also banned (and it really is impossible to not violate some patents, especially standards essential ones).
Ugh.
Nope. We're rooting for competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34
Not sure I really care about a bunch of money going towards lawyers instead of R&D. People root for Apple to ban phones until the iPhone itself is also banned (and it really is impossible to not violate some patents, especially standards essential ones).
Ugh.
Apple doesn't outsource their legal work. The cost of their legal team is already accrued as part of their payroll. It's a very large department. The cost of R&D gets paid back heavily when legal defends its research.
You really have no clue about standards essential patents, do you?
The owner of those patents cannot stop you from using them. However, if you want to use them, you must pay for them.
In order to violate FRAND, you use essential patents without paying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34
Not sure I really care about a bunch of money going towards lawyers instead of R&D. People root for Apple to ban phones until the iPhone itself is also banned (and it really is impossible to not violate some patents, especially standards essential ones).
Ugh.
From what I gather, Apple's never been a big R&D spender. While Apple's marketing spending is #3 in the industry, its R&D spending is one of the lowest (as % of their revenue) in ranking - and it's been that way for many many years. Likewise, Apple's patents granted is still nowhere close to IBM (#1 for almost two decades) or Samsung (#2 for the past decade) figures - though it recently jumped to #40's last year.
So I'm not sure why you are so worried. Apple will continue to use its marketing / legal strategy to win new customers and intimidate its competitors. And with $100B cash, Apple will also continue to buy Anobit, Siri, PA Semi, etc.. Just don't expect Apple to come up with an innovative implementation of Liquid Metal, for instance.
*snort*
It's amazing that the everything Apple does is simply marketing and legal strong-arming and yet it's the rest of the industry that is scurrying to catch up with all of Apple's innovations. Perhaps one day you'll realize that when you run a company efficiently you don't have to spend as much as your wasteful, unfocused competitors on R&D because you actually have real innovation, real understanding of the market, and a real plan to go after that market.
You're also making shit up about about Apple being #3 in marketing spending as Apple doesn't break out those costs. The only value they have is overhead costs, which is not solely advertising.
I was going to ask for a source on that as well, but I think my earlier post pretty much covered it, anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
From what I gather, Apple's never been a big R&D spender.
So I'm not sure why you are so worried. Apple will continue to use its marketing / legal strategy to win new customers and intimidate its competitors.
Yet look at what Apple has produced and achieved. Talk about ROI . . .
Seems Apple is the absolute best at getting value out of their dollar. No waste. A streamlined product lineup. Yet over the past few years they've revolutionized consumer tech. Single-handedly. All *without* OEMs. All under one roof. You HAVE TO have a great product in order to manage that in an industry that is characterized largely by horizontal business models and product licensing. Nobody is doing what Apple is. Nobody is employing the same product strategy or even thinking about tech the way Apple is.
Former Apple Senior VP of Software Engineering Bertrand Serlet in 2009: "“We come at it from such a different place."
Truer words were never spoken about Apple.
As far as Apple's strategy goes, it's easy to market products that are great in the first place. They've built a strong reputation on which they can sell. It's pretty simple to think about but *very* hard to achieve. Because it involves saying NO to so many things and opportunities that present quick, fat, short-term gain, so many easy strategies that don't involve the burden of doing both hardware AND software.
You obviously don't get it. But spend some more time around here and you just might.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Apple doesn't outsource their legal work. The cost of their legal team is already accrued as part of their payroll. It's a very large department. The cost of R&D gets paid back heavily when legal defends its research.
Apple outsources quite a bit of its legal team. There is no way they could handle the dozens of cases in a dozen countries with in house staff only.
A few examples:
Bridges & Mavrakakis
WilmerHale's William Lee
Matt Powers of Weil, Gotshal Manges
Robert Krupka of Kirkland & Ellis
There are plenty of others, these only took a moment to find.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Yet look at what Apple has produced and achieved. Talk about ROI . . .
Seems Apple is the absolute best at getting value out of their dollar. No waste. A streamlined product lineup. Yet over the past few years they've revolutionized consumer tech. Single-handedly. All *without* OEMs. All under one roof. You HAVE TO have a great product in order to manage that in an industry that is characterized largely by horizontal business models and product licensing. Nobody is doing what Apple is. Nobody is employing the same product strategy or even thinking about tech the way Apple is.
Former Apple Senior VP of Software Engineering Bertrand Serlet in 2009: "“We come at it from such a different place."
Truer words were never spoken about Apple.
As far as Apple's strategy goes, it's easy to market products that are great in the first place. They've built a strong reputation on which they can sell. It's pretty simple to think about but *very* hard to achieve. Because it involves saying NO to so many things and opportunities that present quick, fat, short-term gain, so many easy strategies that don't involve the burden of doing both hardware AND software.
You obviously don't get it. But spend some more time around here and you just might.
I agree with some of your points but would also like to add one point I believe is key to Apple's success. Apple announce a product to the market then make it available shortly after while the hype is still fresh.
So many other vendors announce something then wait months to make it available. This gives anyone else time to release another product to trump it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTMP
Apple outsources quite a bit of its legal team. There is no way they could handle the dozens of cases in a dozen countries with in house staff only.
A few examples:
Bridges & Mavrakakis
WilmerHale's William Lee
Matt Powers of Weil, Gotshal Manges
Robert Krupka of Kirkland & Ellis
There are plenty of others, these only took a moment to find.
They work on retainer to process work for them that they need accomplished under in-house legal direction that doesn't require them to work year round. They subcontract the grunt work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
They work on retainer to process work for them that they need accomplished under in-house legal direction that doesn't require them to work year round. They subcontract the grunt work.
Of course they bring in outside firms for much more than "grunt work". Follow Apple's legal battles and you quite often see they're being represented by outside firms. Even high profile cases like the suit taking place between Apple and Samsung in the California Court of Judge Koh use an outside attorney as lead counsel. In that case it's Harold McElhinny of Morrison/Foerster.
Apple may have a lot of lawyers on staff but they don't fight all their battles with in-house guys. They bring in hired guns just like most large companies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Apple doesn't outsource their legal work.
That seems to be incorrect. Posner said that Apple had three different law firms working on that one case alone.