recent, InterDigitalThe company has won a long-running dispute with several handset makers. In limited cases, the Federal Patent Court upheld the standard essential patent in question (SEP) later, The Munich District Court ruled, OPPOProducts of the Company and other patent users have infringed the said patent rights.

Over the years, InterDigitalIt's always been involved3G, 4Gand5GstandardSEPFighting with mobile phone manufacturers from different countries. The company has also filed lawsuits in German courts in Mannheim and Munich. 2023The end of the year, In connection withOPPO, OnePlusandRealmeIn disputes arising from the company, The company won.

InterDigitalWon a tort case

Last year9month, The Federal Patent Court in the United StatesOppoIt was upheld in a nullity suit brought by the companyInterDigitalCompany rankEP2127420B1Validity of No. 1 patent in Germany. The firstEP2127420B1The patent protects a device for wireless transmission／The receiving unit controls discontinuous receptionDRXApproach to, And devices such as smartphones that use the technology. This is for consumers inDRXReduce battery consumption when operating devices in mode.

however, Just before Christmas, Ruling of the Seventh Civil Court of the Munich Regional CourtOPPOandOnePlusThe product infringes on a previously restricted patent, And ordered the defendant to cease and desist immediately. This includes recalling related products and providing account information.

In fact, in2022The summer of, Right here at the Munich District CourtOPPOandOnePlusAfter the decision in the dispute with Nokia, Both companies have withdrawn their products from the market.

Refer to the British judgment

At the hearing, The defendants argued that they no longer imported the controversial designs. According to theOPPOexpression, Tests have shown that the devices sold in Germany do not support the allegationsDRXFeature. besides, The defendant also believes that, They had said they wanted a license, howeverInterDigitaThe sale price set for the permits is simply too high.

OPPOandOnePlusReferences were made to the British High Court in their argumentsInterDigitalAssociate with (Lenovo) The outcome of a dispute between. The presiding judge determined in the judgmentInterDigitalthe5GThe offer is not fair, Reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) Standard. therefore, OPPOdemandInterDigitalPropose other comparable license agreements. merely, The court rejected the request, And consider it a tactic of resistance.

In addition, The Munich judge also said, Either the defendant filed under antitrust lawFRANDobjection, The so-called principle of proportionality was mentioned, None of this prevents the court from making a judgment of infringement. meanwhile, The court also held that the defendant did not become a licensee voluntarily. The judge disagreedOppoThe view of, namelyInterDigitalThe license offer does not complyFRANDprinciple, Instead, the defendant's counteroffer was seen as a violationFRANDAct of principle. therewith, And the judge dismissed itOppoA reference to the judgment of the British High Court, And pointed out that there is no connection to the current controversy.

On the whole, The judge found that the defendant violated the NoEP2127420B1Patent No. The judge said, Even thoughOPPOIt no longer sells some of its products in Germany, But the company's future sales activities still pose a risk of infringement.

Up to now, It is unclear whether the parties will appeal. (Be compiled fromwww. juve-patent. com)

TRANSLATORS: Liu Peng　proofread: Wu Xian



　　disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original articles are from the network, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact us, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.