nterlace/1/q/85″ data-w=”1080″ data-h=”651″>
Image from: Yahoo
In 2011, Google spent $12.5 billion to acquire Motorola. In addition to its interest in Motorola’s R&D assets, an extremely important reason is that Motorola has accumulated a lot of patents in the field of mobile phones.
Google then reached patent licensing agreements with a number of Android manufacturers, including Samsung, and even established the PAX Patent Alliance in 2017 to promote internal cooperation among manufacturers in the Android camp and jointly resist possible patent litigation.
In addition, defensive patent operating companies such as RPX(Rational Patent X) have appeared on the market, usually RPX will Acquire various patents on the market, and then provide authorization to the members of the organization. The members invest in the organization or pay dues.
At the same time, The rampant “patent rogue” companies have aroused social resentment and promoted the pace of judicial reform. In addition to requiring the above-mentioned reform of the origin of patent litigation, the US government also requires the US Patent and Trademark Office to strengthen the review of patent applications, and the respondent can apply for patent invalidation until the end of the infringement bill. .
Such legal changes are still in progress.
Three, profit from patent litigation, more than “patent rogue”
exceptIn the case of “patent rogue” companies, it is very common for large companies to use patent litigation as a negotiation condition or even a means of competition.
Apple Qualcomm’s patent litigation in recent years is one of them. This incident stems from Apple’s and Qualcomm’s different opinions on patent licensing fees. Apple believes that Qualcomm’s patent licensing fees are too high. Being able to reach an agreement on costs and going to court has become an inevitable event.
At first, Apple and Qualcomm filed multiple legal proceedings in the United States. On the one hand, Qualcomm sued Apple for patent infringement and on the other hand, Apple sued Qualcomm for a monopoly. Then it spread to many regions such as Germany and even China, which also resulted in the iPhone ban at the end of 2018.
At the time, Qualcomm announced that it had won a patent dispute with Apple. For this reason, the Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court approved a temporary injunction against iPhone. Of course, Apple chose to reconsider.
The final patent lawsuit ended with a settlement between the two parties, and the two companies reached a six-year global patent licensing agreement and a multi-year chipset supply agreement. As compensation, Apple will pay Qualcomm a one-time fee of approximately $4.5 billion.
Patent litigation has become a negotiation tool for both parties.
If you look at the 2010s farther away from us, you will see a more serious smartphone patent war. At that time, it was normal for companies to initiate patent litigation for competition.Apple, Google, Samsung, Microsoft, Nokia and many other technology companies have initiated patent litigation against each other.
The result is that everyone has their own wins and losses. For example, HTC has also faced a decision to prohibit the sale of products. The patent war has lasted longer and longer, and the litigation expenses of various companies have become higher. The entire industry has suffered huge losses.
Until Apple and Google jointly announced the end of the patent war in the smartphone field in 2014, patent litigation between technology companies was gradually reduced.
As for the reasons for the truce between Google and Apple, there is a view that in addition to reducing litigation expenses and promoting industry development, Google and Apple need to face a common enemy-“patent rogues”.
picture from: BusinessInsider
It is foreseeable that the litigation war between the enterprise and the “patent rogue” company will not end, although in the view of the respondent, the business model of “patent rogue” that does not pay and profit from patent litigation is It is unethical and also hinders the development of the industry, but it does protect its rights within the scope of the law.
However, with the increasing impact of “patent rogues”, the relevant legal mechanisms are gradually improving.
Based on well-known patent defense operations