Samsung v. Huawei
| Industry | Technology, Telecommunications |
|---|---|
| Founded | 2011 |
Area served | International (United States, China) |
| Products | Patents, standard essential patents (SEPs) |
Template:Multiple issuesNegotiations between Huawei and Samsung regarding cross-licensing of their patent assets, including SEPs, began in 2011.[1] Since both entities held SEPs, they were each obligated to provide FRAND licenses to the other. Despite prolonged discussions, the parties were unable to finalize an agreement. Following this impasse, Huawei initiated legal action against Samsung in the United States on 24 May 2016[1] and subsequently in China on 25 May 2016. [2] In response, Samsung commenced lawsuits targeting Huawei within both US and Chinese jurisdictions, accompanied by multiple counterclaims and petitions to invalidate patents.
By 13 April 2018, the dispute had escalated to encompass 42 patent infringement lawsuits in China alone. [2]
Timeline
2011
- Cross-license negotiations commence.
2018
- 4 January: Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court issues an injunction against Samsung. The US District Court for the Northern District of California references this date as 11 January 2018 per Xie Decl. ¶ 7; Jan. 11, 2018 Shenzhen Court Civil Judgment (certified translation) (“Shenzhen Order”) (Stake Decl. ¶ 37, id., Ex. 36, Dkt. No. 277-5 [under seal]).
- 26 January: Samsung submits an appeal notice to the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court.
- 1 February: Samsung files a motion seeking an antisuit injunction in the US District Court for Northern California.
- 13 April: Judge William H. Orrick grants the antisuit injunction favoring Samsung. [3]
2019
- A joint motion to stay proceedings is filed in Case 16-cv-02787-WHO.
Case (2016) Yue 03 Min Chu No. 1382, Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court
On 4 January 2018, the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court rendered a confidential ruling accessible only to involved parties. A public, redacted version was issued on 21 March 2018. The court’s judgment was also broadcast live.[4]
Injunction
The court determined that Samsung bore greater responsibility for the stalled negotiations, attributing this to what it viewed as Samsung's intentional delay tactics. Additionally, the court recognized that Huawei possessed a patent classified as a 4G LTE SEP, which Samsung had infringed upon. Consequently, the court issued an injunction against Samsung, mandating that it discontinue the infringement.
Case 16-cv-02787-WHO, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Antisuit Injunction
In evaluating whether to grant an antisuit injunction, Judge Orrick applied established legal criteria:
“A federal district court with jurisdiction over involved parties holds authority to prohibit them from pursuing litigation in foreign courts, though this authority must be exercised cautiously.” Seattle Totems Hockey Club, Inc. v. Nat'l Hockey League, 652 F.2d 852, 855 (9th Cir. 1981). “Such injunctions empower the court to prevent a party under its jurisdiction from proceeding abroad when doing so would be unjust.” E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Andina Licores S.A., 446 F.3d 984, 989 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Gallo”). The Ninth Circuit applies “a three-factor test to evaluate the appropriateness of an antisuit injunction.” Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 696 F.3d 872, 881 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Microsoft II”); see also Gallo, 446 F.3d at 990 (outlining the framework for antisuit injunctions). First, it must be determined whether both actions involve the same parties and issues and if the initial proceeding is dispositive of the subsequent one. Second, the applicability of at least one Unterweser factor is assessed. Third, the potential effect on international comity is evaluated to ensure it remains acceptable. Microsoft II, 696 F.3d at 881 (citations and internal quotes omitted); see id. at 882 (United States District Court Northern District of California referring to this as the “Gallo framework”).
After careful consideration of the facts within this legal context, Judge Orrick concluded:
“Accordingly, Samsung’s request to enjoin Huawei from enforcing injunction orders issued by the Shenzhen court is GRANTED. Huawei is prohibited from enforcing those orders until I have had an opportunity to adjudicate the breach of contract claim it initiated in this case before pursuing actions in China.”
Scott Graham summarized this decision with the headline “Judge Blocks Huawei's Chinese Injunctions Against Samsung.” However, this headline is somewhat misleading since the U.S. antisuit injunction solely bars Huawei from enforcing the Chinese court’s orders; it does not invalidate or alter the Chinese court’s rulings in any respect.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Huawei v. Samsung et al.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Huawei v. Samsung et al.
- ↑ https://www.essentialpatentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/64/2018/04/2018.04.13-280-Order-Granting-Antisuit-Injunction.pdf.
- ↑ Live: Judgment pronounced in Huawei and Samsung case 华为诉三星侵犯知识产权案宣判. YouTube. Archived from the original on 2021-12-08.
External links
- Samsung's Response to Complaint CASE NO. 16-cv-02787-WHO Archived 2022-01-22 at the Wayback Machine
- Huawei's Complaint CASE NO. 16-cv-02787-WHO Archived 2022-01-22 at the Wayback Machine
- Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court Judgment
- Judge Orrick’s antisuit injunction preventing Huawei from enforcing the Shenzhen court’s SEP-related injunction (Huawei v. Samsung) Archived 2019-03-06 at the Wayback Machine
- ORDER APPROVING SAMSUNG'S ANTISUIT INJUNCTION MOTION Archived 2019-03-06 at the Wayback Machine
- Court Blocks Huawei’s Enforcement of Chinese Injunctions Against Samsung
Lua error in mw.title.lua at line 359: bad argument #2 to 'title.new' (unrecognized namespace name 'Portal').