Erick Robinson's China Patent Blog
Erick Robinson's China Patent Blog
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Blog
  • Contact

Highest Court in China Overturns Ridiculously Low Royalty in Interdigital v. Huawei

12/28/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
This will be a short post, as I just wanted to point out that the Supreme People’s Court very recently granted InterDigital’s petition for a retrial in a case involving royalties to be paid by Huawei.  The high court’s ruling overturns a decision by the Guangdong Province High Court decision that certain InterDigital Chinese patents should not exceed 0.019 percent of the actual sales price of each Huawei product. 

I will try to get the raw data shortly, but the English-language report saying this is here: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/interdigital-granted-huawei-patent-case-retrial-by-china-spc
​
This is a big deal, as it will make it nearly impossible for Chinese and other companies to cite IDC v. Huawei for the purpose of supporting a 0.02% royalty rate.  Indeed, Chinese damages law is quickly evolving to catch up with the rest of the progressive patent law and procedure we continue to see coming out of China.  This is great news for innovation, for China, and for the innovators worldwide.

0 Comments

Bilingual (English-Chinese) Version of Apple Injunction Order in Both Qualcomm Cases from Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court

12/11/2018

1 Comment

 
Because not everyone can read Chinese, here are downloadable PDF copies of the bilingual versions of both orders from the Fuzhou court regarding the injunction against Apple requested by Qualcomm:
Picture
Order No. 1208
Picture
Order No. 1209
Note that in China, each patent requires a different "case."  Here, because there are two patents, there are two separate orders:  one for Patent No. ZL201310491586.1 and one for ZL200480042119.X.  I encourage you to read both orders, although they are largely the same.

Interesting facts from these documents:
  1. Qualcomm provided an injunction bond of RMB 300,000,000 (US $43,481,553).  
  2. Claims 1 and 17 of the '586 patent and claims 1 and 7 of the '119 patent were found infringed.
  3. The claim language in English is provided in the orders.
  4. For the '586 patent, Qualcomm did not accuse products manufactured by Pegatron Corporation and for the 119 patent, Qualcomm did not accuse products manufactured by Pegatron Corporation and Compal Electronics Inc.
  5. The order in both cases is effective immediately and until remains effective until the judgment of each case comes into effect (i.e., after trial). 
  6. Apple may apply for reconsideration once within 10 days after receiving the order, but the enforcement of the order will not be suspended during the period of reconsideration.
  7. Both orders state that the four defendants (Apple Computer Trading, Apple Beijing, Apple Shanghai and Apple Fuzhou) are likely to infringe patent rights or aid the infringement and that the Court holds that the accused acts exist actually and continuously, and the trial of this case will last a certain period until the final judgment is rendered. Further, during this period, Qualcomm is likely to suffer irreparable losses due to the accused acts of Apple Computer Trading, Apple Beijing, Apple Shanghai, and Apple Fuzhou.
  8. Qualcomm is represented by LexField Law Offices and local counsel, Fuzhou Zhanhui Patent Office.
  9. Apple is represented by Fangda. 
1 Comment

Official Announcement:  I have joined Dunlap, Bennett & Ludwig as Partner in Beijing and Houston!

12/11/2018

8 Comments

 
Picture
I have officially joined the U.S. law firm of Dunlap, Bennett & Ludwig (DBL) as a Partner.  DBL is a leading full-practice law firm with offices in 17 cities in the United States, China, Europe, Canada, and Puerto Rico.  I will also be working with IntellStrategy, a Chinese patent agency.  IntellStrategy is closely affiliated with, but separate from, DBL.  The DBL-IntellStrategy alliance allows our team in North America, Europe, and China to achieve goals for our clients that other law firms, patent agencies, and consultancies cannot.  For example, unlike many international firms which "cannot assist clients with Chinese IP law," IntellStrategy can directly represent Chinese and international clients in China's courts and before the Chinese patent office and Patent Reexamination Board.  

I will continue to split my time between Beijing and Houston.  One of the biggest advantages is that I can represent clients in both the U.S. and China now!  I am still technically a consultant in China because I am not Chinese and cannot be admitted to the Chinese bar (but thanks to IntellStrategy, my colleagues can!).  However, I will continue to manage all types of IP issues in China, focusing on patent licensing and litigation. 

Further, I can use my Texas and New York bar cards again!  I love my Chinese practice, but I miss arguing in court, taking deposition, and even (gulp!) managing discovery!  Also, because DBL has an office in Europe, I can help companies enforce their patents simultaneously in the most important patent courts in the world.  

Joining me in my move will be my entire Chinese team, including patent litigation superstar, Dragon Wang.   

In case you are wondering, my short stint at my prior firm did not work out for reasons mostly related to conflicts.  It is what it is, and I am very excited to work with my new colleagues!  

8 Comments

Qualcomm's Revenge:  Apple Enjoined In China

12/10/2018

1 Comment

 
Picture
The Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court in China has granted Qualcomm's request for two preliminary injunctions against four Chinese subsidiaries of Apple Inc.  The affected Apple products are the iPhone 6S, iPhone 6S Plus, iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus and iPhone X.

The patents at issue enable users to adjust and reformat the size and appearance of photographs, and to manage applications using a touch screen when viewing, navigating and dismissing applications on their phones.

I have not seen the order, but Apple is saying 
that the injunction only includes older versions of iOS.  This is a developing issue and I will provide information as I receive it.  What is clear, though, is that because this is a preliminary injunction, the injunction should NOT be stayed pending appeal.  Also, there may be some political issues at play because whereas Qualcomm has paid its dues in China, Apple has never been a friend of China.  One need only consider that Qualcomm is a supplier to some of the most important companies in China, whereas Apple is a competitor to those same companies. 

FYI: Here is a good article on some of the details as they are known to Reuters.


Stay tuned - this one is big and could get bigger.  I need to go now because I have to go file a bunch of cases in Fuzhou!

1 Comment
    Erick Robinson's Blogs:

    Litigation Funding Blog
    Patent Litigation Blog
    Trade Secret Blog
    PTAB Blog
    China Patent Blog
    AI Law Blog
    Picture
    Picture
    Follow @RobinsonErick

    Subscribe to the China Patent Blog by Email
    Welcome to the China Patent Blog by Erick Robinson.  Erick Robinson's China Patent Blog discusses China's patent system and China's surprisingly effective procedures for enforcing patents.  China is leading the world in growth in many areas.  Patents are among them.  So come along with Erick Robinson while he provides a map to the complicated and mysterious world of patents and patent litigation in China.  

    Author

    Erick Robinson is an experienced American trial lawyer and U.S. patent attorney formerly based in Beijing and now based in Texas. He is a Patent Litigation Partner and Co-Chair of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board Practice at Brown Rudnick LLP, where he manages patent litigation, licensing, and prosecution in China and the US.

    Picture
    View my profile on LinkedIn

    Categories

    All
    5-year Plan
    Amendments
    Articles
    China
    China Patent Law
    China Supreme People's Court
    Chinese Antitrust Law
    Chinese Patents
    CNIPA
    Damages
    Foreign Patentees
    Government
    Huawei
    Intel
    Interdigital
    Other Blogs
    Qualcomm
    Royalties
    Semiconductor
    SEPs
    SIPO

    Archives

    March 2025
    February 2025
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    September 2020
    May 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015



    ​Disclaimer:

    The ideas and opinions at ChinaPatentBlog.com are my own as of the time of posting, have not been vetted with my firm or its clients, and do not necessarily represent the positions of the firm, its lawyers, or any of its clients. None of these posts is intended as legal advice and if you need a lawyer, you should hire one. Nothing in this blog creates an attorney-client relationship. If you make a comment on the post, the comment will become public and beyond your control to change or remove it.

    RSS Feed