Gilstrap rejects Apple’s bid for relief in 5G SEP clash

US judge finds ‘secret’ filing of patent suits does not pose risk to case | Apple placed on notice of sanctions.

US District Judge Rodney Gilstrap has denied Apple’s request to have Ericsson cover any losses stemming from a recent injunction issued in Colombia.

In an order handed down yesterday, July 28, Gilstrap explained that while he felt “sympathy for Apple’s obvious frustration” at Ericsson’s litigation tactics, these actions (including the Colombian case) don’t interfere with the court’s pending action.

“The court simply does not find that Ericsson’s actions pose an imminent risk of harm to this court or its management of this case, nor do they post an imminent risk of harm to Apple as regards its ability to proceed with the instant case on the current trial schedule,” said Gilstrap.

‘Covert’ filing

Earlier this month, Apple  alleged that Ericsson had covertly filed patent suits in Colombia, in a move aimed at forcing Apple to subvert proceedings in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

At the time, Apple claimed that Ericsson had filed more than ten lawsuits in Colombia “in secret, and all with absolutely no notice to Apple”, and that a Colombian court had granted Ericsson’s ex parte request for an injunction against Apple.

Apple had filed an emergency motion for relief, asking the court to order that Ericsson cover Apple’s expenses from the Colombian litigation.

In this week’s order, Gilstrap said that Apple had failed to show that the Colombian order caused any imminent harm that would support indemnification.

He added: “While Ericsson may have hopscotched all over the planet filing suits against Apple as a means to bring pressure to bear—or as Apple has termed it: for coercive effect—such actions, including the Colombian case embodied in the motion, do not interfere with this court’s pending action or its efforts to bring the instant case to an early trial near the end of this calendar year.”

Notice of sanctions

However, Gilstrap did agree to expand the terms of the court’s protective order to permit Apple to provide its Colombia counsel with copies of the Colombian filings produced by Ericsson in the litigation, along with two licences between Ericsson and Samsung that had been provided.

Concluding, Gilstrap said that Apple had “misused and misapplied” the rules for emergency motion practice, noting that Apple’s argument in support of its requested relief is “bereft of any showing” of imminent and irreparable harm.

“As noted above, the court has some level of sympathy for the frustration visited upon Apple by Ericsson’s strategic conduct in other diverse forums, but such sympathy does not excuse a misuse of this court’s rules regarding emergency motion practice.

“Apple is placed on notice that further such conduct will warrant, and likely result in, sanctions against it,” he concluded.