Sorry, Qualcomm, Apple – your patents don't scare us

Google neutrality pacts has shifted the balance


Analysis Patent royalties make up a higher proportion of cellular device costs than in most other markets, so the IPR game has been a hard-fought and sometimes vicious one. At the start of 2015, various developments suggest that the playground bullies of the past will lose a lot of their power. Qualcomm is on the defensive in China, while the holders of fundamental mobile patents are hitting back against Apple.

As it becomes clear which firms really hold the crown jewels in LTE and beyond – with China and Korea taking major roles - that will hit Qualcomm, which has huge adjustments to make to its licensing model, to accommodate a world where China is the biggest device market.

But smartphone patents are not just about the modem any more. Equally important are higher layer technologies such as screens and user interface software. While usually not included in standards, this kind of IPR has been at the heart of the past few years’ waves of handset-related patent litigation.

The new complexity of the smartphone allowed Apple to become a new bully. It sought to use its arsenal of hardware and software IPR for two purposes - to dilute the royalties power of the firms with major holdings in 3GPP standards-essential patents (SEP), an area where Apple has not invested; and to weaken the competitive position of Android and Samsung, by getting devices banned and generally undermining confidence in the Google platform.

Google neutrality pacts shift balance against Apple

The ability of both Qualcomm and Apple, in their respective fields of IPR, to dictate terms from rivals is now severely constrained. Apple still has lawsuits outstanding with Samsung, in particular, but it is being squeezed on two fronts – by a series of Google-initiated neutrality pacts which unite many important players against unnecessary litigation; and by its weakness in standards-essential IPR.

Google – which made a serious misjudgement in assuming it did not need to invest in mobile patents when it initiated the Android revolution – recovered itself by acquiring Motorola Mobility and other significant mobile IPR holders, and by supporting the legal efforts of key allies (and patent-holders) like Samsung. In the later months of 2014, it also engaged in a series of non-aggression pacts with IPR heavyweights like Samsung, Cisco, Verizon and Ericsson, and even agreed to a limited truce with Apple.

Those pacts are important because their signatories commit to long term cross-licensing deals with very broad scope to cover future patents in many cases, reducing the likelihood of legal spats. When Verizon signed its deal with Google late last year, it portrayed it as a blow to trolls, which have been the other menace in the mobile world in recent years. The operator wrote in a blog post that the agreement would guard against the patent troll – “the Johnny-come-lately owner of a single patent can threaten an entire innovative ecosystem”.

By greatly reducing the risk of future litigation, these pacts remove one of the key arguments which Microsoft and Apple have used against Android – that the Google OS exposes its licensees to the risk of lawsuits. After agreements with Samsung in January 2014, followed by similar ones with Cisco and LG, Google is starting to counteract that argument. Samsung has signed similar agreements with Cisco and Ericsson, and others are going the same way, potentially creating a mesh of cross-deals between many of the mobile sector’s largest players, which could deter them from suing one another, as well as making it harder for outsiders like Apple, or for trolls, to attack.

Ericsson and Apple come to blows

However, this is not entirely an outbreak of harmony. Companies with strong SEP holdings are increasingly keen to improve their financial performance, in a world where product margins are tight, by exploiting their IPR more effectively. Giant SEP owners like Ericsson and Nokia traditionally derived limited revenue from licensing but used their patents mainly for bilateral cross-licensing deals which reduced their own costs, especially compared to rivals with no patents to trade. But now they are determined to increase their direct income – especially in the case of Nokia, which has sold its devices division and whose patents are housed in an autonomous business unit.

Apple is an obvious target, as one of the world’s largest mobile device vendors, but severely lacking in patents essential to 3GPP technologies. This was made clear in 2011, when it settled a two-year dispute with Nokia over patent licensing terms, a deal in which the Finnish firm triumphed, highlighting how the old handset guard might be declining in sales terms, but remained dominant in IPR. Reminiscent of that epic battle is a new fight between Apple and Ericsson, which have this week fired lawsuits at one another after two years of negotiations failed to resolve licensing terms for the Swedish giant’s huge portfolio of cellular patents.

Claims and counter-claims

Ericsson is claiming that Apple is infringing patents which are essential to cellular standards and therefore included in every 3G or 4G iDevice. Apple is countering with the same kind of arguments it has already used against Samsung and others – that if IPR does indeed constitute SEP, then Ericsson is over-charging, and failing to honour commitments that all SEP should be licensed under Frand (fair reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms.

Apple seems to be taking a belt-and-braces approach – as well as the Frand arguments, it also alleges that Ericsson’s patents are not essential to LTE standards, and that it doesn’t infringe on them anyway. It insists that, even if a court finds the IPR is fundamental to LTE, Ericsson must calculate its royalties as a percentage of the price of the chip (notably Qualcomm’s modem) not the whole device. It made these claims in a suit filed on January 12 in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, while Ericsson responded with its own legal action, placed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

The industry has indeed moved towards chip-based, rather than device-based, royalties calculations, and regulators and governments have become increasingly determined to define and enforce Frand guidelines, with several companies – such as Samsung – being investigated for potential abuses by the European Commission. However, what constitutes Frand is not at all clear, and accusations of excessive or non-uniform charges have become a standard feature of licensing disputes in recent years.

In its countersuit, Ericsson insists that its patents are essential to the LTE standard and petitions the court to rule that its licensing policies, for its entire SEP portfolio, are fair. It claimed, perhaps disingenuously, that one reason for going to the law courts was to obtain an independent assessment of whether its licensing schemes do indeed comply with its Frand commitments.

Gustav Brismark, Ericsson’s VP of patent strategy, also told Telecoms.com that Apple’s claims over royalties only covered a small percentage of the patents portfolio involved. “The Apple complaint only contains a small subset of the patent portfolios that are at issue,” he said. “Meanwhile the lawsuit that Ericsson has initiated primarily asks the court do the assessment and come to the conclusion that Ericsson’s offer is indeed in line with our Frand commitment.”

“We’ve always been willing to pay a fair price to secure the rights to standards-essential patents covering technology in our products. Unfortunately, we have not been able to agree with Ericsson on a fair rate for their patents so, as a last resort, we are asking the courts for help,” Apple said in a statement.

“We believe it is reasonable to get fair compensation from companies benefitting from the development we have made over the course of the last 30 years,” retorted chief intellectual property officer Kasim Alfalahi.

Ericsson had a similar run-in with Samsung, which also accused the Swedish firm of inflating its licensing demands when renewal time came around. The companies settled that case a year ago, with a multibillion dollar agreement. However, Samsung would have had more to trade in IPR terms, so the Apple case may prove harder to resolve. And it certainly reflects the new licensing world, where the SEP giants are exploiting their assets more aggressively.

Similar topics

Narrower topics


Other stories you might like

  • Qualcomm wins EU court battle against $1b antitrust fine
    Another setback for competition watchdog as ruling over exclusive chip deal with iPhone nullified

    The European Commission's competition enforcer is being handed another defeat, with the EU General Court nullifying a $1.04 billion (€997 million) antitrust fine against Qualcomm.

    The decision to reverse the fine is directed at the body's competition team, headed by Danish politico Margrethe Vestager, which the General Court said made "a number of procedural irregularities [which] affected Qualcomm's rights of defense and invalidate the Commission's analysis" of Qualcomm's conduct. 

    At issue in the original case was a series of payments Qualcomm made to Apple between 2011 and 2016, which the competition enforcer had claimed were made in order to guarantee the iPhone maker exclusively used Qualcomm chips.

    Continue reading
  • Former chip research professor jailed for not disclosing Chinese patents
    This is how Beijing illegally accesses US tech, say Feds

    The former director of the University of Arkansas’ High Density Electronics Center, a research facility that specialises in electronic packaging and multichip technology, has been jailed for a year for failing to disclose Chinese patents for his inventions.

    Professor Simon Saw-Teong Ang was in 2020 indicted for wire fraud and passport fraud, with the charges arising from what the US Department of Justice described as a failure to disclose “ties to companies and institutions in China” to the University of Arkansas or to the US government agencies for which the High Density Electronics Center conducted research under contract.

    At the time of the indictment, then assistant attorney general for national security John C. Demers described Ang’s actions as “a hallmark of the China’s targeting of research and academic collaborations within the United States in order to obtain U.S. technology illegally.” The DoJ statement about the indictment said Ang’s actions had negatively impacted NASA and the US Air Force.

    Continue reading
  • Qualcomm among queue of suitors chasing a stake in Arm
    Chipmaker interested in forming a consortium for purchase – and so is SK hynix, Intel

    Qualcomm has reiterated it would like a stake in Arm and help create a consortium that would keep the Brit chip designer neutral, or out of the hands of any single chip company at least.

    The latest development in the Arm IPO saga comes from Qualcomm's chief executive, Cristiano Amon, who told the Financial Times that his company was interested in investing in Arm, and that Qualcomm could join forces with other chipmakers to buy Arm outright from owner SoftBank.

    "It's a very important asset and it's an asset which is going to be essential to the development of our industry," Amon said.

    Continue reading
  • Qualcomm sampling Wi-Fi 7 silicon for next-gen access points
    OEMs able to develop new products with aim of 10Gbps-plus throughput

    Qualcomm is sampling its Wi-Fi 7 Networking Pro Series chips aimed at throughput of more than 10Gbps for enterprise access points, gateways, and premium home routers.

    The third generation of the chipmaker's Networking Pro Series platforms is set to "initiate a new era" of 10Gbps Wi-Fi, Qualcomm claimed, stating that the new portfolio is optimized for multi-user environments and low CPU utilization to power collaboration, telepresence, and metaverse applications for both home and enterprise environments.

    Sampling means that the Networking Pro silicon is available to Qualcomm's OEM customers so they can develop and test the Wi-Fi 7 products that will ship to end users at some point. It isn't clear when buyers will actually be able to get their hands on kit to deploy, although Qualcomm previously said it expects to see Wi-Fi 7 products hit the market in 2023.

    Continue reading
  • Volkswagen to put Qualcomm tech under the hood across all brands
    CEO says Intel may yet end up inside, through its Mobileye tech

    Volkwagen Group’s automotive software subsidiary CARIAD has picked Qualcomm to provide system-on-chip modules (SOCs) for its automated driving software platform.

    The company has chosen Snapdragon Ride Platform portfolio as its hardware, projected to be available as of “the middle of the decade” according to CARIAD.

    Volkwagen CEO Herbert Diess said its project Trinity – the next generation of electric vehicles which will require "high performance chips" – will be ready for Level 4 automated driving in 2026. Level 4 automation means cars can handle most tasks without human intervention, but people can still take the wheel if they wish.

    Continue reading
  • Tesla sues former engineer, claims he stole Dojo supercomputer trade secrets
    AI is meant to solve tech challenges innate in designing, running complex system

    Tesla has started legal action against a former employee the company alleges was copying confidential data from its Project Dojo supercomputer onto his own systems outside the company. It further alleges he tried to conceal his actions by submitting a substitute laptop for inspection by the carmaker's information security team.

    In documents filed with the US District Court in California [PDF], Tesla names the former employee involved in the case as Alexander Yatskov, and reveals that he was hired at the end of January to work as a thermal engineer on it’s supercomputer for artificial intelligence work, codenamed Dojo, in order to help solve "the technological challenges that come from designing and running a complex, custom supercomputer."

    Some time later, Tesla claims that its engineers discovered that Yatskov was moving confidential company information from workplace devices and accounts onto his own personal devices, in contravention of official Tesla policies.

    Continue reading
  • Intel acquires graphics tech biz founded by ex-AMD, Qualcomm engineers
    Demoscene-steeped Siru is on not its Second but, what, Third or Fourth Reality, now?

    Intel has acquired a graphics technology firm founded by ex-Qualcomm mobile GPU engineers whose previous company, Bitboys, was once thought of as a front-runner of desktop graphics.

    Announced on Tuesday, Intel's latest acquisition is Siru Innovations, a Finnish firm focused on developing software and silicon building blocks, known as IP, for GPUs made by other companies. The Siru team will join Intel's fledgling Accelerated Computing Systems and Graphics Group.

    Balaji Kanigicherla, head of the Custom Compute Group within Intel's graphics business unit, said on LinkedIn that Siru's expertise in architecture, software, modeling and hardware implementation will aid Intel's accelerated computing efforts in various high-growth areas, including buzzy terms like blockchain and metaverse.  

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022