HTC Corp. complies With Ericsson’s 4G Patents
just because its technology implements a software application rather than an interface.
data, not accessing that data, and that the act of reading data is not an infringement.
selling its In-Memory Data Storage technology to IBM’s customers.
a photograph, is not copyrightable and is unprotected by copyright.
hard disks are records, and can be copyrighted or unprotectable by copyright.
copying, or the only act of copying.
and the defendants.
infringement.
or any other means permitted by the copyright owner.
an act of copying.
97-2323, 2000 WL 3374562 (5th Cir. ), (September 9, 2008).
communications program.
The first jury verdict in the United States affirmed that HTC Corp. et al. complied with Ericsson’s 4G patents.
The first jury verdict in the United States affirmed that HTC Corp. complied with Ericsson’s 4G patents. | Computer Hardware.
HTC has been working on a next-generation 4G network for the past year and months, but the first verdict of a trial, by a jury, of a United States District Court judge in Austin Texas, has now announced that HTC has complied with Ericsson’s 4G patents. This verdict is one of two final verdicts to be delivered out today in the Federal Circuit – the other being a decision of the Federal Circuit not to review Ericsson’s appeals.
The outcome of today’s case, the first to be finally decided by the Federal Circuit, affirms a decision by Judge Richard D. Bennett of the United States District Court of Texas that HTC’s 4G technology meets the patent-equivalence requirements of section 102(a) of the Patent Act.
We are pleased with the decision and look forward to seeing where this goes in the future. But be aware that it is very early for HTC’s 4G technology to reach full commercialization.
There have been a number of cases over the years where the courts have had to decide whether the claimed invention is patent-eligible. This decision is very important. It has the potential to change the way the courts view the patent system.
The decision will be appealed to the Federal Circuit, which can render a final ruling on the matter, and may even make a decision at that stage. It would be wise to watch the developments closely because any decision to make today will have implications for the future of the patent system.
If HTC succeeds in the appeal, this could open the door for a number of new technology innovations, such as 4G-enabled smart phones using the HTC 4G network, an entirely different network than 4G is currently used in by Ericsson.
Ericsson’s 4G network will be delivered over 3G or 3. 5 G, which is still a very new technology.
The Fifth Circuit ruled that HTC had not breached its FRAND obligations.
The Fifth Circuit recently held that HTC’s FRAND obligations were not breached when HTC sold the HTC One to LG for an additional $3. 5 million to end its $27. 5 million debt under an agreement. The Circuit Court ruled that HTC was not obligated to repay the LG Note 3. The question of whether the FRAND obligations were breached turns on whether the Note 3 was purchased “for resale” and not “for use. ” This is the first time a Fifth Circuit Court has addressed issues of FRAND obligations in the context of a technology recall and whether the FRAND obligation was breached. [See the Fifth Circuit’s Opinion and Order at www. com/opinion-and-orders-and-opinion/documents_htc_note_3. ][Read the opinion on the FRAND issues atwww. com/news-and-press. A copy is provided here.
Background: In April 2012, HTC entered into an agreement with LG to sell the HTC One and the LG Nexus 2. On September 30, 2012, LG sued HTC. Although the parties resolved the suit in August 2013, the suit was stayed in order to allow LG access to the evidence it needed to defend the lawsuit. [1] On October 19, 2014, the Fifth Circuit ruled that HTC’s FRAND obligations were not breached when HTC sold the HTC One to LG for an additional $3. 5 million to end its $27. 5 million debt under an agreement. The Circuit Court ruled that HTC was not obligated to repay the LG Note 3.
The Fifth Circuit has used the same FRAND standards that govern the FRAND obligations of manufacturers of semiconductors from which it draws its business. Samsung, for example, requires all Samsung parts sold to Samsung retail stores to come from Samsung and not third parties. Samsung’s FRAND obligations are not limited to the design, production, and sale of semiconductors. It requires that all the parts used in Samsung products be made by Samsung.
Bringing FRAND/Unwilling Licensee Disagreement to the United States,
An article by James G. Waddell, entitled “Linking Licensees and Products on the Internet,” published in the January/February 1995 issue of Computer Hardware (ISSN: 1064-4240), contains content that may be subject to international copyright law. This issue was originally posted on the Internet under the title “Bringing FRAND/Unwilling Licensee Disagreement to the United States. ” Copyright notice is provided in the following sub-chapter.
Subject Sub-Title: Bringing FRAND/Unwilling Licensee Disagreement to the United States.
This article is published by Computer Hardware, which is not affiliated with any other company or organization.
A link to this web page will be fixed at my own expense.
For your information, I would like to state that this article is written by James Waddell, a consultant in the software industry. I am an active member of the Computer Hardware editorial staff, and I do my best to provide information and assistance to the editors of the magazine.
The article was originally posted on the Internet under the title “Bringing FRAND/Unwilling Licensee Disagreement to the United States. ” This title is incorrect. The title should have been “BringingFRAND/UnwillingLicenseeDisagreementtoUnitedStates.
This correction has been posted under “CORRECTION.
This article will focus on the issue of linking licenses and the potential problems that may arise if FRAND is applied to licenses.
The issue of linking licenses is a complicated one. It is a subject that has been researched and examined many times before in the industry. Some of the previous studies on linking licenses have been presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Information Technology Implementers of the International Standards Association, in November 1994, and again in December 1994.
1994 Annual meeting of the I.
Tips of the Day in Computer Hardware
The new, smaller, AMD E2-1220-based EPYC processors are ready to show off at Computex 2018, and a new comparison chart has just been published by AMD.
AMD’s Ryzen 7 2500X and EPYC processors have been updated to include the Ryzen 5 2600X and EPYC N2850 processors which now feature Radeon Vega 12 graphics. These new processors have a base clock speed of 1700 MHz / 1600 MHz, with an effective boost to 2. 7 GHz for the higher end EPYC N2850 which includes up to 12 cores per thread. Compared to the Intel Core i5-8400, Ryzen 7 and EPYC N2850 are even more affordable and will also be on sale this quarter on sites like Amazon and BestBuy.
The new EPYC N2850 processor compares favorably with the i3-9400K and i3-9500K processors which, with 2. 6 GHz base clock speeds, are rated as having “well above” the 2.
Related Posts:
Spread the lovejust because its technology implements a software application rather than an interface. data, not accessing that data, and that the act of reading data is not an infringement. selling its In-Memory Data Storage technology to IBM’s customers. a photograph, is not copyrightable and is unprotected by copyright. hard disks are records, and can…