First judgment
In one of the judgments, the plaintiff was Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., and the defendants were Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd., Huizhou Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Tianjin Sanxing Communication Technology Co., Ltd., and Shenzhen Nanfang Yunhe Technology Co., Ltd.. The plaintiff Huawei submitted to the court. Filing a claim: The four defendants immediately stopped the infringement of the plaintiff's invention patent No. 201110269715.3, including but not limited to manufacturing, sales, promising sales, and importing alleged infringing products.
The involved patent 201110269715.3 is a necessary patent for the 3GPP LTE communication standard, and the Chinese name is 'a wireless network communication device'. The filing date is April 27, 2007, and the authorized announcement date is July 29, 2015.
On February 16, 2016, the plaintiff purchased the Galaxy S6 Samsung (SAMSUNG) mobile phone produced by the defendant Huizhou Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. from the defendant Shenzhen Nanyunhe Technology Co., Ltd., and purchased the Galaxy produced by the defendant Tianjin Samsung Communication Technology Co., Ltd. J5 Samsung (SAMSUNG) mobile phone. After analysis, the plaintiff found that the aforementioned products all comply with the 3GPP LTE standard, and the technical solutions contained therein all fall into the protection scope of the plaintiff's patent rights and infringe the plaintiff's patent rights involved in the case.
The court’s final decision was as follows:
1. The defendants Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd., Tianjin Samsung Communications Technology Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Huizhou immediately stopped using the manufacturing, sales, and promised sales methods to infringe the patent right of the plaintiff Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. with patent number 201110269715.3;
2. The defendant Shenzhen South Yunhe Technology Co., Ltd. immediately stopped the sale of the product and promised sales in violation of the patent right of the plaintiff Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. with the patent number 201110269715.3;
3. Dismissed the plaintiff Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. for other lawsuit requests.
The case acceptance fee of RMB 1,000 was jointly borne by the defendant Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd., Huizhou Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Tianjin Samsung Communication Technology Co., Ltd., and Shenzhen South Yunhe Technology Co., Ltd.
Second judgment
In another judgment, the plaintiff was Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and the defendants were Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd., Huizhou Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Shenzhen South Yunhe Technology Co., Ltd. The plaintiff Huawei filed a lawsuit to the court: Decree The three defendants immediately ceased the act of infringing the plaintiff's invention patent 201010137731.2, including but not limited to manufacturing, sales, promising sales, and importing alleged infringing products.
The involved patent 201010137731.2 patent is a necessary patent of the 3GPP LTE communication standard, and the Chinese name is “Method of feeding back ACK/NACK information during carrier aggregation, base station and user equipment”. The filing date is March 24th, 2010, and the authorized announcement date is June 2014. 25th.
On February 16, 2016, the plaintiff purchased the Galaxy S6 Samsung (SAMSUNG) mobile phone produced by the defendant Huizhou Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. from the defendant Shenzhen South Yunhe Technology Co., Ltd.. After analysis, the plaintiff found that the aforementioned products all comply with the 3GPP LTE standard. Among them, the products that support carrier aggregation include the technical solutions that fall into the protection scope of the plaintiff's patent rights and infringe the plaintiff's patent rights.
The court’s final decision was as follows:
1. The defendant, Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd., and Huizhou Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. immediately ceased to use the manufacturing, sales, and promised sales in a manner that infringed the plaintiff's patent number 201010137731.2;
2. The defendant, Shenzhen Southern Yunhe Technology Co., Ltd. immediately ceased to infringe the plaintiff's patent number 201010137731.2 on the basis of sales and promised sales;
3. Dismissed the plaintiff Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. for other lawsuit requests.
The case acceptance fee of RMB 1,000 was paid jointly by the defendant Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd., Huizhou Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Shenzhen Southern Yunhe Technology Co., Ltd.
From July 2011, Huawei and Samsung began negotiations and it has been more than six years. The plaintiff Huawei did not have any apparent fault in the negotiation process and complied with the FRAND principle. Samsung and the plaintiff Huawei engaged in the negotiation of cross-licensing of standard essential patents in terms of procedures and entities. There were obvious faults and did not comply with the FRAND principle. The plaintiff Huawei sought an injunctive relief from this court in the circumstances when the plaintiff Huawei sought to negotiate and attempted to solve the issue of the cross-licensing of standard-essential patents between the parties through arbitration. The court organized mediation between the two parties. Samsung continued to maliciously delay negotiations during the mediation process. In view of this, the plaintiff demanded that the defendant stop infringing on his patent rights, that is, stop the implementation of the necessary patented technology in his 4G standard, and this court supported it.
It is worth noting that the Judgment stated that taking into account the fact that the patent for this case is a 4G standard essential patent, it is different from the non-standard essential patent in stopping the infringement. After the court ordered the defendant to assume the verdict of stopping the infringement, Huawei and Samsung It is still possible to negotiate cross-licensing of standard-necessary patents. If the plaintiff and Samsung have reached a standard patent cross-licensing agreement or the consent of the plaintiff does not implement the court's decision to stop the infringement, it should be permitted.