Patent License Dispute Between Ericsson And Samsung

Recently, Swedish telecom company Ericsson has filed a lawsuit in the US against South Korean company Samsung for breach of contractual commitments and failure to negotiate the patent licensing and payment terms in good faith, essentially under FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and Non-discriminatory) terms. In the suit, Ericsson is also looking for a declaratory ruling that Ericsson on its part complied with its own licensing commitments.

The lawsuit has been filed against Samsung in Texas, (specifically the District Court of Eastern District of Texas) where Ericsson has its US headquarters while a proper response from Samsung’s side is awaited. Ericsson is suing for FRAND compliant patent licenses in the field of 5G standard in telecommunications and network technology. As per statement issued by Ericsson, these “may delay the payment of IP royalties if they extend beyond the expiry of existing licenses into an unlicensed period.”

ericsson[Image Source: Shutterstock]

Readers may note that, certain technologies are designated as essential for the implementation of a technology-based system in a standardized manner. These technologies are termed as “Essential Patents” and under the FRAND system, technology or patent owning companies agree to license these technologies to others on FRAND terms and collect royalty payments.

In plain-speak, the background of the matter is that both Ericsson and Samsung are holder of some key technologies in the telecom, mobile telephony and communication space have extensively licensed their standard technologies to the other (cross licensed) in the past. While the earlier licensing arrangements covered for the previous standards (2G, 3G and 4G), for the new standard (5G) however, these licenses are either expiring or had to be renegotiated. Their discussion for the new licenses commenced in 2019, however, for some reason or the other, they could not reach a conclusion. As per the complain of Ericsson, their proposal covered a global cross-license for both companies’ essential IP, as well as a balancing payment from Samsung to Ericsson, “reflecting the parties’ relative sales and the value of Ericsson’s Essential Patents as compared to Samsung’s”. On July 20, 2020, Samsung rejected Ericsson’s offer, responding two months later with a counteroffer Ericsson asserts “was unreasonably low.”  Ericsson then sent an offer for arbitration with a third-party to determine the appropriate FRAND rate for a global cross-license. Samsung rejected the arbitration offer in a response that came 44 days later. Ericsson asserts that licensing negotiations have continued but without progress and eventually it became clear to them that Samsung had no intention of negotiating in good faith towards concluding an agreement with Ericsson on FRAND terms and conditions.

As per Ericsson, by taking into consideration delayed payments and potential costs of litigation, this dispute could impact their quarterly operating income by between SEK 1 billion ($118 million) and SEK 1.5 billion ($177 million). By some estimate, this could potentially reduce Ericsson’s earnings by around 20% per quarter starting in the first quarter next year.

Author: Arindam Purkayastha, Patent Attorney at IIPRD, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at arindam@iiprd.com.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

8 + 5 =

Archives

  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 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
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010