Source: https://es.scribd.com/document/376485213/18-04-13-Order-Granting-Samsung-Antisuit-Injunction-Against-Huawei
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 00:20:02+00:00

Document:
24 this action based on the other’s alleged failure to license their SEPs on FRAND terms.
1 operations in China in the interim is great. Its motion is GRANTED.
19 Policy.”); Samsung’s Licensing Declarations (Samsung’s Answer and Am. Counterclaims, Exs.
21 (Huawei’s Compl., Exs. 2.1–2.43, Dkt. Nos. 3-1–13[under seal]).
by both parties. Those motions are addressed at the end of this order.
expounded on the benefits of standards in various industries. See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v.
Mobility, Inc., 2011 WL 7324582, at *1 (W.D. Wis. June 7, 2011).
7 . Id. ¶ 7.
15 than figure out a process to resolve their differences if agreement is impossible.
28 Huawei based on its alleged infringement of Samsung’s SEPs. Opp’n at 8.
1 violation in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act, 4 and breach of contract. Answer and Am.
8 China, alleging Huawei is infringing Samsung’s SEPs and seeking injunctive relief. Wang Decl.
9 ¶¶ 2–8; Xie Decl. ¶ 2 n.1. Seven of those SEP actions remain pending. 7 See Xie Decl. ¶ 2 n.1.
15 the proceedings before the Shenzhen court that form the basis for this motion).
18 Huawei contends are essential to ETSI and 3GPP standards.” Am. Counterclaims ¶ 322.
20 acknowledgement that the actions were “simultaneous[ly]” filed. See Samsung’s Answer and Am.
28 Samsung’s SEPs. Id. ¶ 8.
11 that Huawei’s offers “had complied with FRAND principles.” See Shenzhen Order at 200–203.
18 sole SEP licensing offer “did not comply with FRAND principles.” Id. at 204.
are awaiting decisions in those two suits. Id.
the accuracy of the certified translation “[f]or purposes of this motion only[.]” Opp’n at 6 n.2.
2 compelled into a global adjudication of all FRAND issues with Huawei, which it stoutly resists.
5 moot the patent infringement claims. See Joint Case Management Conference St. at 2–5 (Dkt. No.
12 issues in preparation for a two-week trial. Order Regarding Case Management Proposals (Dkt.
19 from proceeding in a foreign court in circumstances that are unjust.” E. & J. Gallo Winery v.
23 (establishing framework for determining whether to issue anti-suit injunction).
1 (referring to three-part inquiry as the “Gallo framework”).
7 Injunction Issued by the Intermediate People’s Court of Shenzhen at 4, 13, 23 (“Opp’n”)(Dkt. No.
18 factors in Applied Medical Distribution Corp. v. Surgical Co. BV, 587 F.3d 909, 913 (9th Cir.
3 obtaining a preliminary injunction.
5 21, I will begin with a background of that case.
13 grant licenses to its SEPs on “reasonable and nondiscriminatory,” or “RAND” terms. 11 Id.
1 bench trial in November 2012. Id.
9 importing or possessing” the accused products in Germany. Id.
15 conclude a license agreement” with Motorola. Id.
Motorola from enforcing any injunction obtained in the German action. 696 F.3d at 880.
2 domestic action is dispositive of the foreign action’ collapse into one.” Microsoft I, 871 F. Supp.
8 Since “[p]erfect identity of parties is not required for an anti-suit injunction[,]” Microsoft I, 871 F.
9 Supp. 2d at 1098, this is sufficient to establish that the parties are functionally the same.
21 discriminatory (“FRAND”).)(Dkt. No. 59).
25 II, 696 F.3d at 883. The district court rejected this argument, and the Ninth Circuit agreed.
7 that the U.S. contract action might dispose of the German patent action.” Id. at 884.
12 [was] a contract, that it [was] enforceable by Microsoft, and that it encompasse[d] not just U.S.
16 inconsistent with the licensing commitment.” Id.
26 counterparts of patents asserted here. Xie Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7.
because those issues were not before it on this interlocutory appeal. Microsoft II, 696 F.3d at 884.
3 initiated the domestic action and asked the court to set the FRAND rate. Microsoft I, 871 F. Supp.
5 essential patents. Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 2013 WL 2111217, at *59 (W.D. Wash. Apr.
10 interpretation by a U.S. court.”)(quoting Medtronic, Inc. v. Catalyst Research Corp., 518 F.Supp.
11 946 (D. Minn. 1981), aff'd, 664 F.2d 660 (8th Cir. 1981)).
as a matter of comity.”)). I need not address that argument at this time.
other, this action will resolve the propriety of injunctive relief for the parties’ declared SEPs.
28 unable to decide a FRAND rate based on all of the parties’ U.S. SEPs.
10 impact of having Chinese patents litigated in China.
that it declared ‘complied with FRAND principles’ and then granted the injunction.”).
3 equitable considerations.” Seattle Totems, 652 F.2d at 855.
17 Apple, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc., No. 11-CV-178-BBC, 2012 WL 5416941, at *15 (W.D.
26 FRAND royalty or unreasonably delays negotiations to the same effect.” Id. at 1332 (citing U.S.
7 refusing to license such a patent.”)(Greenblatt Decl. ¶ 5, id., Ex. 4, Dkt. No. 240-8).
17 faces the risk of significant harm, not just in China, but with impacts percolating around the world.
22 to enter into a ‘holdup’ settlement before the litigation is complete.” Microsoft II, 696 F.3d at 886.
25 be lessened without an anti-suit injunction. See id.
presented with breach of contract claims.
24 as a bargaining chip. This is how things have changed over time.
25 Talk of Huawei’s Jianxin Ding S-816 Samsung China (Stake Decl. ¶ 2; id., Ex. 1; Dkt. No. 235-7).
States. E.g., Opp’n at 20.
7 annoying.’ ”)(quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1701 (9th ed.2009)).
9 whether the injunction’s impact on comity is tolerable. Microsoft II, 696 F.3d at 881.
16 Airways Ltd. v. Sabena Belgian World Airlines, 731 F.2d 909 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Id.
forum.... However, there are limitations to the application of comity.
23 forum are vitiated by the foreign act.
24 Id. at 995 (quoting Laker Airways, 731 F.2d at 937).
3 ‘public international issue.’” Id. at 888 (quoting Gallo, 446 F.3d at 994).
10 remain free to seek damages for infringement of its Chinese patents while this action is pending.
15 comity.” Id. The scope of the injunction further indicates that the impact on comity is tolerable.
21 last less than six months, presents a negligible impact on comity. See id.
23 The parties filed administrative motions to seal portions of their briefing and attachments.
26 tailored their requests for sealing only that information that could cause them competitive harm.
3 narrowly tailored requests, Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.
4 2006), their administrative motions are GRANTED.
9 this action prior to filing the Chinese actions.
10 IT IS SO ORDERED.
Fu Jian Quanyu Industry v. LNL Building Products et. al.

References: v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.