InterDigital's CEO Wants Patent Licensing Dispute With China's Huawei to Be Arbitrated
Huawei has accused U.S.-based InterDigital of violating an agreement to license patents that are essential to 3G, 4G and 5G wireless telecommunication standards on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions. The two companies were embroiled in a similar dispute a few years ago.
January 08, 2019 at 02:25 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
China's Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. and U.S.-based telecommunications research and development company InterDigital Inc. are embroiled in another patent licensing dispute after reaching an agreement in a similar dust-up two years ago.
InterDigital's chief legal officer, general counsel and corporate secretary, Jannie Lau, reported to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 7 that Huawei had sued InterDigital and several of its subsidiaries in the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court in China five days prior.
The suit alleges InterDigital, which is headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware, violated an agreement to license patents that are essential to 3G, 4G and 5G wireless telecommunication standards on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions.
“The complaint also seeks a determination of the terms for licensing all of the InterDigital defendants' Chinese patents that are essential to 3G, 4G and 5G wireless telecommunication standards to the Huawei plaintiffs for the plaintiffs' wireless terminal unit products made and/or sold in China from 2019 to 2023,” Lau wrote.
Huawei filed the suit shortly after its 2016 patent license agreement with InterDigital expired Dec. 31. An attempt to speak with a Huawei spokesman was unsuccessful.
InterDigital's president and CEO, Bill Merritt, said in an interview Tuesday that these types of disputes over royalty rate settings have “become a little more commonplace over the last couple of years.” He also noted that Huawei has litigated from both sides of the issue as a patent licensor and licensee.
“One of the issues we see is with these [cases] popping up in courts around the world and with the nature of the different rules in those courts and how they proceed you can end up with differing results,” Merritt said.
He wants InterDigital's latest dispute with Huawei to be settled out of court through arbitration, which he asserts leads to greater uniformity and clarity in setting royalty rate standards.
“Part of it is that people can gain an advantage by bringing lawsuits in their hometown and causing delay,” he added. “We want to advocate for arbitration because it will prevent races to the courthouse and angling for the benefit of delay.”
Merritt also expressed concern about the differences in how courts in various jurisdictions handle sensitive information that gets exchanged during a dispute, including trade secrets and agreements with other companies.
“Whether it's China or Germany or the U.S, they vary on how confidential information is handled,” he said.
The last time InterDigital and Huawei argued over patent licensing, the two sides reached an agreement through arbitration that began in 2013. The proceedings, which were held in France, according to Merritt, led to the aforementioned multiyear patent licensing agreement in 2016.
Huawei's latest suit against InterDigital comes with the backdrop of heightened U.S.-China trade tensions, and was filed after Hauwei's chief financial officer, Meng Wanzhou, the daughter of Huawei's founder, was arrested Dec. 1 in Canada at the request of U.S. authorities. She is accused of helping a Huawei subsidiary avoid U.S. sanctions on Iran.
Asked if he believed that the U.S.-China conflict played a part in Huawei's decision to sue InterDigital, Merritt said: “It's hard for us to say if it is or isn't.”
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTravis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readLegal Speak's 'Sidebar with Saul' Part IV: Deliberations Begin in First Trump Criminal Trial
1 minute readJosh Partington of Snell & Wilmer Is in Fact a Rock Star in the Office (and Out of It)
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-59
- 2The American Lawyer Names Industry Award Winners
- 3Regulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
- 4Cravath Elevates 7 to Partnership, Up From Last Year
- 5Kline & Specter Hit With Lawsuit From Another Former Associate
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250