pochemunyet: Since each case has different facts, there are both similarities and differences between IDCC's cases and the Realtek v. LSI case.
In the Realtek case, they filed a circuit court action asserting that LSI breached their RAND licensing obligations by initiating the ITC action before approaching Realtek with a RAND licensing offer. That differs from the IDCC cases, where ITC and District Court action was initiated after licensing negotiations apparently were unsuccessful.
As far as similarities go, in their original filing Realtek asserted causes of action for: (1) breach of contract, (2) promissory estoppel, (3) declaratory judgment that defendants' must offer Realtek a RAND license or that the alleged "essential" patents are unenforceable as to Realtek, and (4) unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code § 17200. These are somewhat similar to the FRAND related counterclaims filed by Huawei and the other three respondents in the District Court actions: Count I (Breach of Contract), Count II (Breach of Contract-Third Party Beneficiary), Count III (Equitable Estoppel), Count IV (Waiver of Right to Enjoin), Count V (Declaratory Relief—IDC Has Not Offered or Granted [Defendants] Licenses on FRAND Terms) and Count VI(DeclaratorRelief—Determination of FRAND Terms).
Another differnce is the status of the cases. In the Realtek case LSI submitted a dismissal motion; however, in acting on the motion the court sustained the first three causes of action and dismissed Realtek's unfair competition claim. Realtek then moved for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim and for an order enjoining defendants' from enforcing any exclusion order or injunctive relief. That is what the Judge's latest ruling covers. In the IDCC cases the Judge has yet to rule on IDCC's request to dismiss the counterclaims.
As I previously noted the decision did not stop the ITC from continuing it's case and coming up with their own decision.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
