iml, re: QCOM GSM v NOK equitable estoppel discussion, and
“What we have here, .... & correct me where I am inaccurate, is no communication relating to Q's essential IPRs in the GSM/GPRS/EDGE standard, correct?”
No, I don’t believe that’s the issue.
After reading / pondering over the informative posts, I believe the issue relates solely to NOK’s alleged infringement of the Q’s GSM IPR in the design, manufacture, and sales of standalone GSM products as NOK’s 2001 license extension only covered the Q’s IPR in dual mode devices (w/ CDMA / WCDMA).
NOK is not infringing on the Q’s GSM IPR as long as the product being sold also includes CDMA / WCDMA. Therefore, I don’t believe there is any disagreement that the Q has essential IPR in the GSM family of standards and that fact as of necessity has been disclosed .
The subject Q IPR was incorporated into the GSM family of standards as they were essential enhancements in providing GSM data capabilities (etc.) via GPRS / EDGE. As was pointed out, the Q being a member of the ETSI was obligated to “share” its IPR on a FRANDly basis and as such apparently could **not** withhold such from implementation even in a competitive product and even if it was to Q’s advantage to do so.
Getting back to the “equtable estoppel” issue in patent cases.
Again, I’m not a legal professional nor tech geek, but from the article I believe these are the key points.
1. “When the estoppel arises out of the unfair activities of the party asserting its rights, then the law refers to it as an "equitable estoppel."
2. "An equitable estoppel typically arises in these cases when a patent owner makes a misleading communication that it will not enforce its patent, and an infringer reasonably relies upon that communication to continue or expand its business. The communication itself can take almost any form, including conduct or silence, as long as it supports a reasonable inference that the patent will not be enforced. However, in order to show reliance, the infringer must have been lulled into a false sense of security with regard to continuing or expanding its operations. Consequently, silence alone is generally not enough to create an estoppel, unless the patent owner also has some other duty to disclose its patent position."
3. This duty of disclosure often comes into play during a company's participation in a standards-setting process.”
Comments / Questions re: the application of “equitable estoppel” in this case –
1. I don’t believe in the Q’s history, nor in this instance, the Q ever stated / gave the impression that it would not enforce its patents.
2. I don’t believe the Q was ever “silent” about its patents being included in the GSM family of standards.
3. I don’t believe NOK did not know that the Q’s IPR was in the GSM family of standards.
4. Therefore, this issue is not about duty to disclose during the standards- setting process.
5. Hence, as I see it, the only issue that remains is NOKs **alleged** infringement of the Q’s GSM IPR in designing, manufacturing, and selling a standalone GSM product (w/o CDMA/ WCDMA also included). Namely>>>
5.1. How it was that NOK did not know its 2001 license extension **apparently** did not include standalone GSM coverage?
One has to assume it was a monumental blunder, as NOK certainly would not agree to the extension without a provision for a standalone GSM device.
5.2. If Qualcomm knew that NOK was designing a standalone GSM/GPRS product ,
5.3. and **if** knowing such, was the Q obligated to inform NOK at the license extension signing in July 2001 that sales of such would be in violation of that license?
6. Does this “equitable estoppel” defense apply in this somewhat removed instance, interpreted as an “unfair activity” on the Q’s part for not specifically stating standalone GSM products are not covered? Was NOK“lulled into a false sense of security “, being- ????
-
+ the world’s dominant handset supplier
+ Intimately familiar with technically involved IPR / contract issues
+ Intimately familiar with bounds of legal disputes resulting from such issues
+ staffed to the gills with countless in-house / outside IPR attorney representation
Seems to me, interpreting the terms of the license for NOK is not Qualcomm’s responsibility, as that’s the sole responsibility of NOK’s cadre of IPR attorneys. |
