In a landmark decision by the UK Court of Appeal, Lenovo has been mandated to pay a
higher amount to the US-based wireless patent holder InterDigital in an enduring dispute over telecom licensing rates. This ruling marks a significant turn in a prolonged legal battle, with both parties framing the outcome as a triumph.
The dispute centres around essential patents for 3G, 4G, and 5G technologies owned by InterDigital, which are integral to Lenovo's products. The London High Court initially ordered Lenovo to pay $138.7 million last year. Dissatisfied, InterDigital appealed the decision, contending that the royalty rates were insufficient. They argued Lenovo should be liable for $388.5 million, plus compounded interest, amounting to $517.8 million.
The Court of Appeal of England and Wales has increased the royalty rate Lenovo must pay from 17.5 US cents per unit to 22.5 US cents per unit. Although this rate exceeds the initial ruling, it is still substantially lower than the 49-50 US cents per unit that InterDigital pursued. Consequently, Lenovo's total payment to InterDigital has been adjusted to $178.3 million, or approximately $240 million when including compound interest.
In a proactive move to avoid further litigation, Lenovo has offered to license its future products at the new rate of 22.5 US cents per cellular unit.
John Mulgrew, Lenovo’s Deputy General Counsel and Chief Intellectual Property Officer expressed contentment with the decision. "We are pleased with the Court's commitment to confirm fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms for licensing," Mulgrew stated. "This decision aligns more closely with Lenovo's original position than InterDigital's, which we view as a win for Lenovo. It reinforces our commitment to FRAND licensing and being a willing licensee."
Conversely, InterDigital's Chief Legal Officer, Josh Schmidt, celebrated the ruling as a comprehensive victory. "This decision better recognises the value of our cellular wireless innovation," Schmidt remarked. "It advances the balance between innovator and implementer by making it harder for implementers like Lenovo to delay taking a license to patented technologies."
Schmidt also highlighted that Lenovo remains unlicensed to InterDigital's cellular portfolio since the beginning of the year, reiterating InterDigital's dedication to securing fair compensation for its patented technologies.
This case underscores ongoing tensions in the tech industry concerning the licensing of standard essential patents (SEPs), which cover technology critical for industry standards like cellular telecommunications. InterDigital has been embroiled in several high-profile SEP disputes, including cases against Nokia, Huawei, and Samsung. Similarly, Lenovo has faced litigation from Ericsson in the US over unpaid license fees.
The resolution of this case could shape future negotiations and litigations over SEP licensing rates. Both Lenovo and InterDigital's responses indicate a complex landscape where each side seeks to define fair and reasonable licensing terms.
Both parties appear poised for future negotiations, with Lenovo hoping the revised rate will settle ongoing disputes. InterDigital, meanwhile, continues to advocate for adequate recognition and compensation for its innovations.
This case may set a precedent for other companies in similar conflicts, potentially influencing industry dynamics and approaches to patent licensing in the telecom sector.
In other news, Lenovo has encountered additional challenges, including a lawsuit against
Asus for patent infringement and the departure of its Infrastructure Solutions Group leader. These events contribute to the complex legal and strategic environment Lenovo navigates as it strives to innovate and compete in the global tech market.
InterDigital's partial win bolsters its strategy of vigorously defending its intellectual property rights, which it views as crucial for fostering innovation and maintaining a competitive edge in wireless technology.
As the tech industry evolves, balancing innovation and fair compensation remains a critical issue, with cases like this shaping the future landscape of telecom patent licensing.