Opinion ID: 2689159
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Wi-LAN-Ericsson Agreement

Text: In October 2006, Wi-LAN sent a letter to Ericsson, alleging infringement of four of Wi-LAN’s patents (“the WiLAN Patents”). 1 Wi-LAN asserted that the four patents covered all HSPA-compliant products. Because Ericsson sold HSPA-compliant products, according to Wi-LAN, Ericsson infringed the Wi-LAN Patents. Wi-LAN retained McKool Smith PC (“McKool”) to assist with the assertion of its four HSPA patents. McKool, however, had previously represented Ericsson in a number of matters involving UMTS related technology, which encompasses HSPA technology. To resolve the alleged infringement and avoid a potential conflict of interest posed by McKool’s representation of Wi-LAN, the parties executed the Patent Conflict and Resolution Agreement (“the PCRA”) on February 13, 2008. 2 The PCRA granted certain rights to Ericsson in exchange for $100,000 as consideration. The exact scope of those rights is at issue in this appeal. 3 Three Articles in the PCRA grant rights to Ericsson: (1) Article III, titled “Non-Assert and Release” (“the NonAssert Provision”); (2) Article IV, titled “Patents Other Than the Wi-LAN Patents” (“the Damages Provision”); and (3) Article VII, titled “Most-Favoured Licensee Provi- 1 U.S. Patent Nos. 5,282,222; 6,192,068; 6,320,897; and RE37,802. 2 Sony has a separate contract with Wi-LAN, but the parties all agree that the language is materially the same. For simplicity, we will refer only to the LM Ericsson contract. 3 To resolve the potential McKool conflict, the PCRA also stated that neither party could engage McKool to represent them in any dispute involving the other party. WI-LAN USA, INC. v. ERICSSON, INC. 5 sions” (“the MFL Provision”). The parties disagree about the scope of each of these provisions. The Non-Assert Provision states: