Replies to post #428122 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[jealmc79]

Thanks Olddog. You would think with 500 patents they would be signing more companies and making more money than that. Probably paid the lawyers more than that just to spin off the trust. Been highly disappointed with management for a long time. Glad I got called out on a lot of my options recently. Hope you and all the other long timers are doing well.

[Paullee]

anyone remember this U-blox case mentioned, I don't remember it

Swiss Tech Co., IP Firm Settle Patent Licensing Antitrust Fight
By Matthew Perlman

Law360 (September 28, 2020, 6:44 PM EDT) -- A California federal court dismissed a lawsuit from Swiss technology company U-blox accusing intellectual property manager Sisvel of violating antitrust law after the sides said they had reached a settlement and patent licensing agreement.

U.S. District Judge Janis L. Sammartino issued an order on Friday dismissing U-blox's complaint alleging that Sisvel used its monopoly over standard-essential patents for cellular technology to demand unreasonably high royalty rates, despite commitments to license its SEPs on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory, or FRAND, terms.

U-blox said in a statement on Thursday that the companies have reached a worldwide, nonexclusive patent license agreement covering modules and other products it makes using the 2G, 3G and 4G cellular standards.

"U-blox respects the intellectual property rights of others and has always been and continues to be a willing licensee to standard essential patents," U-blox CEO Thomas Seiler said in the statement. "In fact, U-blox views this as a value-added differentiator that benefits U-blox customers and positively distinguishes U-blox within the module industry."

Luxembourg-based Sisvel International SA issued a statement on Monday acknowledging that the dispute has been resolved and that it has provided U-blox with a license to its cellular portfolio, which it said includes 80 patent families and more than 1200 individual patents. The SEPs were acquired from phone manufacturers including LGE, Research In Motion and Nokia, as well as the French telecom operator Orange.

David Muus, program manager for Sisvel's mobile communication program, said the company is pleased to have settled its differences with U-blox.

"Along the way of resolving our disagreement we were surprised, in a good way, to find opportunities with U-blox to work together in the future," Muus said in the statement. "Especially in these trying times of the coronavirus, trade tensions and economic uncertainty, it is welcome to turn a dispute into cooperation."

U-blox makes chips, modules and other components used in automotive, industrial and consumer applications to provide connectivity and positioning functionality for products. It lodged the suit against Sisvel in March, accusing the company of acquiring ownership or the rights to cellular SEPs in order to form a portfolio with a dominant position in the market and then "improperly seek unreasonable royalty rates."

Though Sisvel did not develop the patents at issue, U-blox contends it is still obligated to license them on FRAND terms thanks to agreements the developers made with the organizations that adopted the standards.

According to the complaint, Sisvel was demanding grossly inflated royalties for the patents and refused to negotiate in good faith. U-blox said the company then sent letters to its customers, including Xirgo Technologies, demanding licensing payments and even sued Xirgo in federal court last year.

"U-blox is confronted with an entirely unfair Hobson's choice: refuse to capitulate to Sisvel's unreasonable demands and risk losing its customers and business or agree to a license containing terms and conditions including an unreasonable royalty rate that are not FRAND," the complaint said. "Given these clear hold-up conditions, U-blox had no choice but to file this action."

The suit included claims for breach of contract and monopolization and sought a declaratory judgment setting a FRAND rate. Sisvel had not answered the complaint before the case settled on Friday, according to court records.

U-blox has been involved in similar disputes before. In November, it settled a suit against InterDigital Inc. over that company's alleged refusal to negotiate FRAND terms for its SEPs in a case that attracted the attention of the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division.

Before the settlement, the agency had indicated plans to file a statement arguing that U-blox's allegations didn't trigger antitrust law and asserting that it was "troubling" for the company to suggest that InterDigital's attempts to collect royalties from U-blox's customers were illegal.

Sisvel has also been involved in disputes over SEP licensing terms before. In May, Germany's top court found Sisvel had not breached its FRAND obligations in a dispute with Chinese manufacturer Haier. Sisvel also has pending infringement suits in Delaware federal court against Dell, Tesla and others over its wireless communication and networking patents.

Sisvel is represented by Laura Kabler Oswell of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.

U-blox is represented by Stephen S. Korniczky, Martin Bader, Ericka J. Schulz, Eric K. Gill and Daniel L. Brown of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

The case is U-Blox AG et al. v. Sisvel International SA et al., case number 3:20-cv-00494, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

--Additional reporting by Bryan Koenig, Dani Kass and Dorothy Atkins. Editing by Nicole Bleier.
For a reprint of this article, please contact [e-mail].