Now Ericsson seeks US ban on Samsung Galaxy devices in patent spat

Now Ericsson seeks US ban on Samsung Galaxy devices in patent spat

Summary: Ericsson is turning up the heat another notch on world's biggest smartphone seller with a plea to the ITC.


Ericsson has asked the US International Trade Commission (ITC) to ban dozens of Samsung's popular smartphones, tablets and televisions for alleged patent infringement.

The Swedish telecoms equipment maker filed the ITC complaint last Friday, in a move that could spell trouble for other Android device makers and mark the beginning of a fresh series of court battles across the globe.

Products in Ericsson’s sights include, amongst others, Samsung's Galaxy S III and SII, Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy Note, Galaxy Tab, Galaxy Note 10.1 as well as a long list of Samsung televisions and media players, according to the Foss Patents blog.

The complaint covers "wireless communication devices, tablet computers, media players, and televisions, and components thereof" and notes that Samsung's main rival Apple had already licensed the 11 patents in question.   

The 11 patents concern radio frequency receiver technology, hardware and software design of wireless communication devices and standardised communications protocols, such as GSM, GPRS, EDGE, W-CDMA, LTE and 802.11 Wi-Fi standards. 

The ITC complaint turns up the heat on Samsung: Ericsson filed suit against the company in Texas last week, accusing Samsung of being unwilling to agree to Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms for 24 patents. Ericsson has licensed some of the technologies to Samsung since 2001, but the pair have failed to agree to new terms after the licensing agreement lapsed.

In response to Ericsson's litigation in Texas, Samsung claimed Ericsson's FRAND royalty demands were "excessive". Ericsson has previously said that over 100 industry players had agreed to its terms.

Topics: Samsung, Mobility, Networking, Patents, EU

Liam Tung

About Liam Tung

Liam Tung is an Australian business technology journalist living a few too many Swedish miles north of Stockholm for his liking. He gained a bachelors degree in economics and arts (cultural studies) at Sydney's Macquarie University, but hacked (without Norse or malicious code for that matter) his way into a career as an enterprise tech, security and telecommunications journalist with ZDNet Australia. These days Liam is a full time freelance technology journalist who writes for several publications.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Eric$$on must go away!

    and leave alone the FOSS community!
    No more patent trolls are needed here, they should go after M$ and apple.
    The Linux Geek
    • Read Much?

      Did you even read the article? Most manufacturers have licensed these patents!!!
    • There must be some validity

      in their case if many other players have already licenced the tech.

      Samsung seem to be the biggest culprit in failing to licence of FRAND and non-FRAND if the press is to be believed.
      Little Old Man
    • Don't get it??!!

      So it's ok to sue Apple and Microsoft but not samesung??? What kind of logic is that? Are you 3 or work for samesung?
      • Conversely,

        It's ok to sue for "rounded corners" and "exfat long filenames" bullshit, but when it comes to the real technology, it's always FRAND. MS and Apple "SOS! They make us pay! WTF, we never pay, we make others pay!"
    • Won't Pay = Don't use

      If you read the article, Samsung admits that they have to pay for the licenses. They just won't budge on the amount that Ericsson is charging.

      If they feel the licenses are expensive, then don't use it. Of course this will mean that all the Samsung phones will be turned into expensive music players as the licenses cover all mobile technology known to mankind.
  • samsung at it again

    Samsung just doesn't want to pay for other people's technology. I guess they did a cost analysis and determined it's better to steal other companies tech and pay lawyers fees than to pay proper licensing fees.
    new gawker
    • what do

      you call "technology"? Rounded corners? Or "rubber band"? Or some other prior art stuff?