Huawei & Ericsson renew global patent pact

Huawei & Ericsson renew global patent pact

Huawei and Ericsson have extended their global patent licensing agreement.

The move will allow both companies to take advantage of each other’s essential patents and technology. These essential patents will cover standards for 2G, 3G and 4G connectivity. Both companies will be able to access and implement these standards, with Huawei to pay on-going royalties to Ericsson based on sales.

Jianxin Ding, head of Global Intellectual Property of Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., explained that both manufacturers reached a mutual understanding that intellectual property should be shared but reasonably compensated.

 

‘We are pleased to extend our global cross license agreement with Ericsson,’ he said. ‘This new agreement reflects the two leading companies’ joint view that innovation and intellectual property rights shall be protected, and reasonable compensation for the implementation of intellectual property rights is vital to promoting technology innovation, sharing and standardizing technology, driving and accelerating industry evolution.’

Settling the score

The issue of intellectual property has seen many manufacturers go head to head in the court room over the use of patents. Ericsson is no stranger to these battles, having filed a lawsuit against Apple in both the US and Europe in the first half of 2015 over an expired agreement.

 

The process of taking another manufacturer to court is one that is both lengthy and expensive. Apple faced another lawsuit in the autumn of last year, where it was forced to pay damages of $234m, for using chip technology without permission.

 

The price of maintaining a long-running dispute saw a number of companies throw in the towel last year when it came to settling long running scores. Microsoft and Google agreed to end all patent lawsuits after five years of courtroom battles, settling all 20 of their on-going cases. Samsung also called time on its patent row with Apple, paying the latter $548m to close the books on a disagreement that dated all the way back to 2011.

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

Please wait...


Please write code to prove you're human