Samsung, Google lawyers to represent patent licensing firm in tomorrow’s $2 billion Apple trial

“It’s too early to tell how much, if any, of IPCom’s $2 billion damages claim in Germany Apple will ultimately be ordered to pay. But even before the trial begins, a long list of German patent litigation and prosecution firms is sure to benefit from this litigation and IPCom’s other standard-essential patent (SEP) disputes,” Florian Müller reports for FOS Patents.

“IPCom’s previous assertions of the patents-in-suit were heard by the panel Judge Andreas Voss (‘Voß’ in German) presides over. The Presiding Judge of the Mannheim Regional Court’s Second Civil Chamber (panel), Judge Dr. Holger Kircher, will be in charge of tomorrow’s trial,” Müller reports. “Judge Dr. Kircher hears many patent infringement cases and saw some of these lawyers only recently in connection with the now-settled Nokia-HTC dispute. Initially I thought he was rather plaintiff-friendly in one particular SEP-related context (Motorola v. Microsoft), but later I saw him dismiss and stay a number of Nokia lawsuits (though he also sided with Nokia on two patents). I don’t doubt anymore that he’s balanced. He’s always very well-prepared and usually makes clear at the very beginning of a trial which side faces a steep challenge.”

Müller writes, “I believe IPCom may very well be able to convince him of its infringement theories, but even if so, I doubt that he can be persuaded to award $2 billion in damages over a single FRAND-pledged SEP.”

Read more in the full article here.

Related articles:
Apple hit with $2 billion patent infringement lawsuit – February 5, 2014
Apple faces €1.57 billion patent damages claim in Germany – February 5, 2014


    1. You don’t need to licence FRAND patents “at any price that the owner sees fit”……but license them you must…..”at fair and reasonable” rates.

      The judge needs to see that that is seen to….and hence the trial.

      1. But at the same time, you cannot, in effect, deny licensing on FRAND terms by demanding outlandish rates. Users have a right to use the patents while negotiating a FAIR rate. Dragging your feet to discourage competition, as Samsung and Google have done, is not allowed.

      2. FWIW, something that I see as very problemmatic in all of the FRAND stuff is the frequent use of cross-licencing of IP with exaggerated claims of their cash-equivalent worth.

        Here’s how the game is played.

        Say we have a FRAND that’s really worth 2 cents per node.

        A business approaches the FRAND owner with a Non-FRAND IP product that’s really worth 1 cent per node (and that the FRAND owner wants).

        Instead of the paperwork being written up as:

        ($0.02 FRAND = $0.01 Non-FRAND + $0.01 cash) = $0.01 per node

        …it gets legally written up as:

        ($1.00 FRAND = $0.99 Non-FRAND + $0.01 cash) = $0.01 per node

        And the reason to do this is that when either company goes to negotiate (or sue) with a third party, they have a frauduent “Market Value” to use as their claim.

        Since Apple reportedly doesn’t play this “IP Horse-Trading” game, they’re the ones singled out.


    2. The reason the lawsuits aren’t immediately thrown out is because everyone has a right to have their side and their case presented in court. FRAND licensors are basically claiming that XYZ company didn’t license their patents but infringed on them, and the licensees are stating either: 1) We didn’t infringe; and/or 2) The licensor refused to license on FRAND terms.

      Without hearing the case, no judge (or panel of judges) can properly evaluate a case. Each party has a right to present their evidence.

      It’s why we don’t hold duels any longer. Trials take longer, but they’re also easier to clean up afterwards.

    1. What is the name of the ‘mystery file’? Don’t open it, of course, except in a text editor that executes nothing, such as BBEdit.

      Typically, these things are some crap JavaScript writing. But there are always scammers about, hacking around to download nasties onto your computer, coercing you to open the crap. I’m still seeing file extensions for executables removed and replaced with .JPG, etc., attempting to fool you. Thankfully, OS X knows better and warns you whenever you attempt to open anything executable, no matter what extension was tacked on the end or what deceitful icon was plastered onto the file.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.