Just to add some more confusion
InterDigital Pans 'Wholly Manufactured' Tech Licensing Suit
By Andrew Karpan · Listen to article
Law360 (April 18, 2023, 9:11 PM EDT) -- InterDigital Inc. says that a Swiss chipmaker's latest antitrust lawsuit is little more than "a wholly manufactured dispute," filed in order to impose "litigation costs" and procure a more favorable patent licensing deal.
The main problem is that InterDigital hasn't accused U-blox AG, based in Zurich, of actually infringing any patents yet, according to the dismissal bid filed by InterDigital on Tuesday.
"U-blox has no contractual right to such a license, and InterDigital has not sued (or even threatened to sue) U-blox for patent infringement. There is thus no cognizable dispute between the parties," argued InterDigital, a Wilmington, Delaware-based licensing company that has collected "approximately 2,400 U.S. patents and 11,500 non-U.S. patents," according to the lawsuit from U-blox, filed in early January.
"The court should dismiss U-blox's contrived claims," InterDigital said.
The suit claims that InterDigital is breaking antitrust laws by demanding royalties for those patents "that are discriminatory and far higher than FRAND rates."
U-blox, which makes microchips for wireless mobile devices, sued in order to get a federal court in California to set what a fair licensing rate would be, and to issue an injunction "stopping InterDigital from wrongfully interfering with U-blox's customers and downstream manufacturers," according to the complaint.
Much of the language in that lawsuit over InterDigital's licensing practices had been largely identical to language in an earlier lawsuit that the same U-blox lawyers at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP filed against InterDigital in 2019.
That case ended with a settlement, after the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division weighed in and told the court that the agency planned to argue that the Swiss company's reading of antitrust laws would "unhelpfully distort licensing negotiations." According to InterDigital, the terms of that settlement also prevent U-blox from filing the kind of lawsuit that it filed ever again.
Reached by email, U-blox lawyer Stephen Korniczky of Sheppard Mullin wrote that "InterDigital's belief that the lawsuit is 'a wholly manufactured dispute' is untrue and not supported by the facts of the case."
Korniczky added that "U-blox's request for a FRAND license is necessary to protect itself and its customers from the real and present threat of an infringement allegation by InterDigital. There is nothing manufactured about this dispute."
Representatives for InterDigital did not return a request for comment.
Additionally, in the filings, InterDigital says that the patents it was trying to sell U-blox were not "essential" to manufacturing of any products U-blox sells, meaning there isn't any legal way to apply antitrust laws that let courts jump in and set this kind of rates.
"U-blox fails to allege — and indeed expressly denies — that InterDigital owns any 'essential' patents," InterDigital said.
According to InterDigital, the two companies had been negotiating to set a new rate when U-blox filed suit. The rate the company offered "did not properly value InterDigital's technology," says InterDigital.
