Posts Tagged: "Qualcomm patents"

The Qualcomm decision is unique in that it appears to be the first decision to require a SEP holder to license its patented technology to its competitors, and not just its downstream customers, on FRAND terms.  This decision casts doubt on the longstanding practice, common in industries such as the telecommunication and automotive industries, in which SEP holders seek to secure “FRAND” licenses with downstream companies that make finished products, while refusing to license (or licensing on non-FRAND terms) those same SEPs to their competitors or other companies further up the supply chain (such as component suppliers).  The decision also emphasizes U.S. courts’ focus on the express language of SSOs’ IPR policies and the willingness to review the SSO guidelines in interpreting the agreements SEP holders enter into with SSOs.  In this regard, the decision may bode well for SEP implementers, given the court’s broad understanding of what it means to “practice” a relevant standard and its view that SEP holders’ FRAND obligations extend to all potential licensees, irrespective of their position in the supply chain.

Qualcomm was not refusing to abide by its agreed to promises to license SEPs as required by the SSOs, as alleged by the FTC. Instead, Qualcomm wasn’t interested in licensing competing chip makers who wanted to used Qualcomm’s technology so they could make their own chips incorporating Qualcomm’s patented technology. Licensing competing manufacturers of chips is not what the IP policies of the SSOs require. What is required is that patent owners of SEPs not discriminate against applicants desiring to utilize the license for the purpose of implementing the technology. But that isn’t what a competing manufacture would be doing. A competing manufacturer would be creating the chip that enables, not implementing the technology into an end product. In fact, as Qualcomm pointed out, industry practice of SSOs is to require licensing only fully compliant end-user devices, and not components.

An administrative law judge at the U.S. International Trade Commission recently found patent infringement in Qualcomm’s case against Apple, but then inexplicably refused to recommend that the commission issue an exclusion order against infringer Apple. Is there some new standard that “established and profitable companies” are no longer deserving of ITC action?  The International Trade Commission is in danger of causing the same harm to patent rights as the U.S. Supreme Court has inflicted on patent owners with the court’s lame-brained eBay decision.

Despite finding patent infringement under Section 337 and upholding the validity of Qualcomm’s asserted patents, ALJ Pender found that the statutory public interest factors weighed against issuing a limited exclusion order in this case. This turns the victory for Qualcomm into nothing more than a pyrrhic victory at best given that the only remedy the ITC can hand out are exclusion orders and cease and desist orders. The ITC does not have any jurisdiction to hand out monetary damages. So what exactly would Qualcomm receive for Apple’s infringement? What exactly would Apple be required to pay or change as the result of engaging in infringing behavior? It would seem that there will be no remedy for Qualcomm under ALJ Pender’s decision, and no consequences for Apple infringing the patent claims that have been confirmed valid. 

If Qualcomm’s allegations are true, Apple will apparently stop at nothing to avoid paying licensing fees for Qualcomm’s patented technologies. Qualcomm’s tortious interference suit against Apple alleges that the consumer tech titan misrepresented both Qualcomm’s business model and the performance of Qualcomm’s mobile chipsets in order to encourage foreign trade regulators to levy fines against Qualcomm totalling hundreds of millions of dollars. Most recently, Apple has decided to avail itself of an old friend, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), in the hopes of rendering Qualcomm patents invalid to continue practicing technologies for which it has no interest in paying licensing fees.Apple has shown that it will stop at nothing to avoid paying licensing fees for Qualcomm’s patented technologies. Qualcomm’s tortious interference suit against Apple alleges that the consumer tech titan misrepresented both Qualcomm’s business model and the performance of Qualcomm’s mobile chipsets in order to encourage foreign trade regulators to levy fines against Qualcomm totalling hundreds of millions of dollars. Most recently, Apple has decided to avail itself of an old friend, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), in the hopes of rendering Qualcomm patents invalid to continue practicing technologies for which it has no interest in paying licensing fees.

The date of patent number 10,000,000 will be June 19, 2018. We feel this one is the easiest part of the prediction. We also think the USPTO will award Patent 10,000,000 to Application 13/666670 – SEARCH SPACE DESIGN FOR E-PDCCH IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION NETWORKS from Qualcomm Inc.

In late November, the legal dispute between San Diego, CA-based semiconductor developer Qualcomm Inc. (NASDAQ:QCOM) and Cupertino, CA-based consumer tech giant Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) over patents covering various electronic device components and features. A series of actions taking place in the Southern District of California shifts the focus of what has been an international squabble over patent infringement and antitrust claims back to American soil.

Intel’s claims are interesting, to say the least. If you actually look at the complaint filed by Qualcomm there is no admission, as Intel would have you believe, that infringing products would still be allowed entry into the U.S. just with a Qualcomm processor modem. Qualcomm is very upfront about what they are requesting, however. They are requesting the exclusion of products because those products do not incorporate a Qualcomm processor modem, but that is because Qualcomm owns the patents the cover that component so without using a Qualcomm processor modem there is patent infringement.

The Qualcomm complaint alleges Section 337 violations of patent infringement caused by the importation and sale of certain mobile electronic devices and radio frequency and processing components facilitated by Cupertino, CA-based consumer mobile electronics giant Apple, Inc… “Qualcomm’s inventions are at the heart of every iPhone and extend well beyond modem technologies or cellular standards,” Dan Rosenberg, executive VP and general counsel at Qualcomm, is quoted as saying. “The patents we are asserting represent six important technologies, out of a portfolio of thousands, and each is vital to iPhone functions.”

American semiconductor giant Qualcomm has been taking actions in recent months against a Chinese smartphone developer whose stature has been on the rise. In a press release dated October 14th, Qualcomm announced that it had filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) against Meizu, a portable electronics manufacturer founded in 2003 and headquartered in the Chinese city of Zhuhai. Along with the ITC complaint, Qualcomm also filed a patent infringement action against Meizu in Germany’s Mannheim Regional Court and initiated a infringement-seizure action in France to begin collecting evidence for a potential future patent infringement action in that company.

Not only do virtual reality devices sometime present too much information to users, they do a poor job of prioritizing the space available in augmented reality (AR) environments to portray advertisements on empty real-world surfaces, for example. Qualcomm seeks to avoid this by using the technology protected by U.S. Patent No. 9317972, entitled User Interface for Augmented Reality Enabled Device. The patent discloses a method of displaying augmented reality contents which involves receiving a camera scan of an environment in view of a user, assigning surface priority and surface trackability levels for each surface in the environment, assigning content priority levels for augmented reality contents and displaying augmented reality contents on real-world surfaces based on the assigned surface priority, surface trackability and content priority levels. The system could determine whether a user was at work, home, a business meeting or a social event in order to determine the priority of augmented reality content to be displayed.

While the Snapdragon Wear 2100 was designed mainly for smartwatch devices, the company has more recently unveiled a new semiconductor chip product for targeted-purpose wearables. The Snapdragon Wear 1100, announced in late May, has an even smaller form factor than the Wear 2100, coming in at 79 mm2 as compared to the 100 mm2 size of Qualcomm’s flagship wearable processor. The Wear 1100 syncs with the GPS, GLONASS, BeiDou and Galileo satellite constellations for highly accurate location tracking. Qualcomm suggests that the processor is well suited for devices with more targeted functionality than smartwatches, such as location trackers for the young and elderly, fitness trackers, smart headsets and other wearable accessories.

Qualcomm, Inc. (NASDAQ:QCOM) of San Diego, CA, is a multinational semiconductor firm that designs and markets wireless telecommunications products. Despite weak global demand for new smartphone products, Qualcomm’s technology licensing division has made a series of deals with Chinese handset makers which should bolster flagging profits through 2016. In early April, Qualcomm announced that it had entered into a licensing…

Innovation in the automotive sector was a huge story, both for the types of technologies being developed and the companies pursuing the R&D in that field. Drones and robotics also played a role in other top patent applications which we’re profiling today. Rounding out our list of top 2015 innovations includes an emotion analysis system for financial security, wireless charging schemes, low-power communications for wearable devices and a greenhouse window that can generate electricity while improving crop yield.