backdrop: Nokia andOPPOBetween the standard essential patents (SEP) Licensing disputes have a long history (Since the2021years7Since October) . The Finnish company announced its intention to Sue the Chinese courtFRANDAfter the verdict was appealed, The prospects for a settlement between the two sides appear to be dimming. Nokia's ban would forceOPPOExit from the German market, butOPPOconsider, Compared with the previous agreement to yield to its refusal to renew the patent fee demand, It would be less costly.

Latest news: Two cases in GermanyOPPONokia v. Nokia (Together in Munich, Together in Mannheim) It is possible that a ban could be issued and enforced within months. One of the cases appears to be over, but2024years1month16day, German Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht) Take a turn, maintainedOPPOWith regard to "Dedicated information transmission based on scheduling information validity" The number ofEP3445093Patent No.

Direct impact: The Seventh Civil Division of the First District Court in Munich has suspended the case against the NoEP3445093Patent infringement lawsuit, Because it thinks the patent is right5Gvital, But it could be annulled. The proceedings will resume shortly, Unless Nokia can convince the court that its views are fundamentally wrong (Or wrong from the current perspective) , Otherwise, the court will issue an injunction, Unless Nokia is in itsFRANDWin the plea, In another case, OPPOWith regard to "Wireless communication method, Network equipment and terminal equipment" The number ofEP3624524Patent No. 1 claims rights, Mannheim District Court in2024years4month9A hearing was held on Tuesday. At the hearing, The patent may no longer be a standard essential patent, But there may also be well-founded claims of infringement, In this case, The court will not considerFRANDContest the case for an injunction. ifOPPOOnly one of the potential German bans was obtained, Or they could get both, Then Nokia may prefer to base it on China'sFRANDOrder a settlement, They don't want to risk business disruption.

The wider implications: OPPOOur intellectual property department has demonstrated a sophisticated strategic vision in licensing disputes across multiple jurisdictions, And companies have not caved in after the first few bans in Germany, Overall, it showed great strength. This was unforeseen for Nokia, which has long been a leader in patent enforcement. Reconciliation will allow both parties to focus on more productive work.

OPPOCould take a shot at Nokia "Lucky Fist" , Even two punches in quick succession, This is not because of pure luck, But because of the perfect combination of perseverance and strategy.

mediumipfrayRespect both companies, Especially their intellectual property departments. For intellectual property websites, It was fun "Battle of the Giants" . But now it seems, restrike1Can a legal battle for years or more bring Nokia a reasonable profit, This is highly doubtful.

Both companies have dealt a fatal blow to some of their rivals' patents. however, In view ofOPPOWill become a pure licensor, Nokia faces more pressure, Decisive leverage must be obtained, Losing a defensive case is not an option. A few months ago, Nokia seems to be able to resistOPPOAll counterclaims against his patents, Including some patents exclusively licensed from Huawei (Qualifications under German law) Probably the best hope. But the German Federal Patent Court recently upheld itOPPOExecuted against Nokia5G SEPaccredit, Seventh Civil Division, 1st District Court, Munich (Presiding judgeOliver Schoen) After a full trial last year, It is clear that the case is of Paramount importance (Therefore suspend the hearing, Instead of making a final judgment on the defendant) .

with4G (LTE) Compare with, The firstEP3445093The number of patents has decreased5GCommunication overhead. before, Even devices in a given cell (That is, the device connected to a given base station) You don't need to, A complete set of system information is also sent periodically. OPPOThe invention optimizes this by providing the probability that the scheduling information of the selected system information can be identified as valid. If the relevant system information is not useful, The information is no longer transmitted.

Court of Munich2023years4month20Daily trial, And scheduled to2023years5month25Give judgment on. Just before the expected announcement3day (The opinion at this time even if not100%Final opinion, It may well have already been achieved99%) , The Federal Patent Court issued a preliminary opinion, Said the patent would not be able to overcome one (But one is enough) Prior art references (Alleged evidenceK2) , In the opinion of the ineffective panel, According to common sense, The reference makes the claimed invention obvious. In this context, The Munich court is clearly not going to grant an injunction, It adjourned the case, Pending the outcome of parallel invalid proceedings.

thereafter, The Federal Patent Court heard the case, And delivered the verdict at the end of the trial as usual. The preliminary inclination of the five-member panel has already been givenOPPOSome hope. Although the Court reiterated the views expressed in the preliminary assessment, butOPPOA request for assistance (Amended claims) Be considered valuable. After hearing the opinions of the lawyers of both parties on the form of patent grant and various possible changes to the claims, The Federal Patent Court makes prior art references during the lunch breakK2The impact was reconsidered. This has reignited the debate over whether patents should remain in their original form, And that's what ended up happening.

This series of events shows, OPPOHe won the infringement case last spring. As mentioned above, The infringement award at that time must be final or at least close to final. If the court had found a reason to dismiss the complaint on non-infringement grounds, It will publish the verdict it has written, Instead of discontinuing the proceedings.

FRANDIs another problem. Even if the infringement court finds that NokiaFRANDjustification, It also suspends the case, becauseFRANDJust a defense to injunctive relief, It doesn't settle a claim for damages. At this point, Considering that in recent years MunichSEPThe defendant's record of the case (Even go back toSisvelThe run-up to the case against Haier) , ipfrayPoint out, If Nokia is in the caseFRANDWin the plea, Will make a big difference.

When the patent is modified, A new infringement analysis is necessary. In the present case, The claims have not changed, thoughipfrayThe lack of coordination between infringement and invalidation procedures in Germany was criticized (According to federal court guidelines, A patent is considered valid on the basis of a narrow interpretation of the claims, But it is enforced on the basis of a broad claim interpretation, This situation is unbelievable) , But German law does not require the Munich court to analyze the reasons why the Federal Patent Court upheld the patent.

Another in Germany threatened Nokia with injunctive reliefOPPOIn the case of Nokia, The problem is not thatFRAND, It's about being suedSEP (The firstEP3624524Patent No) Whether it is not due to additional claims limitationsSEP, In case, Whether it is still infringing.

To clarify the logic, If the product is advertised as implementing a certain standard, The patent being sued is considered a key part of the standard, Then Germany's claims of infringement are well founded. In circumstances that amount to a reversal of the burden of proof, The defendant must prove that it did not actually implement that part of the standard in the alleged product, That rarely happens. Because there is no pre-trial discovery system in Germany, As a result, infringements caused by the inner workings of complex technical products are not always recognized, But when it comes to communication protocols, The interception of information is sometimes a means of developing a strong claim form. Such as, Ericsson2022In MunichWhatsApptheiOSThe version mentions noSEPTort action (The defendant is Apple, Rather thanMeta) .

The Mannheim District Court has decided2024years4month9Day trial. before, The court wanted to wait for a mistrial before making a ruling. If the patent is a non-SEPpatent, But it has been infringed, Then it doesn't existFRANDdemurrer, The question is whether Nokia can bypass the patent.

On the basis ofipfrayEvaluation of, Fully confirmed5G SEP (The firstEP3445093Patent No) It's a potential "Silver bullet" , And being narrowed down to noEP3624524Patent No. 1 is a little pending, When there is no margin for error (Of course, Unless you already have a workaround) , And that makes people uncomfortable.

If you were in federal patent court5The time to settle a dispute before a judge is not yet ripe, Then it's probably ripe for it now. In this case, German patent law will eventually lead to a settlement, While2022In the spring of this year Nokia won its first competitionOPPOAfter the German ban, Few would have expected such a reversal. (Be compiled fromipfray. com)

TRANSLATORS: Wu Xian　proofread: Wang Dan



　　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.