Nokia achieves SEP victory in Germany
China smartphone maker infringed cellular tech patents | Litigation followed failed negotiations over royalty rates | Nokia continues winning streak.
In a victory for Nokia, the Regional Court of Mannheim, Germany, has concluded that Chinese smartphone seller Vivo has infringed three of Nokia’s cellular standard-essential patents (SEPs).
Late last week, the court held that Vivo was infringing the three patents and granted Nokia injunctions against the Chinese company.
The cases were heard in the second chamber of the Regional Court Mannheim by Judge Kircher (presiding judge), Judge Elter (reporting judge) and Judge Böttcher (assisting judge).
In a statement, Nokia said: “The Regional Court in Mannheim, Germany has ruled that Vivo is using Nokia’s patented technologies in its smartphones and is selling them illegally without a licence.
“The court also found that Nokia has acted fairly. We welcome the judgment which confirms, once again, the strength of Nokia’s patent portfolio, and call upon Vivo to accept its obligations and agree a licence on fair terms.”
Expired licence
At the end of December 2021, Vivo’s patent licensing agreement to pay for the use of Nokia’s patented technologies in their devices expired. Negotiations to renew the licence were unsuccessful.
Two of the three patents at issue—EP 2,981,103 and EP 3,220,562—disclose efficient assignments of preambles when initiating random access to an LTE network. In July 2022, Nokia asserted these two patents against Oppo in Germany and secured injunctions.
The third patent—EP 2,087,626—relates to adaptive modulation in a 3G network.
Nokia has also taken Vivo to court in other jurisdictions, including India and Indonesia. According to Foss Patents, Nokia has now received approximately ten adverse decisions in Indonesia.
The Indonesia decisions are believed to be the first SEP cases held in the country. A spokesperson for Nokia told WIPR: "The decisions in Indonesia were made on purely procedural grounds—relating to which entities were involved in the case—and were not substantive decisions. It is in no way a judgment on the facts of our commercial disputes with OPPO and Vivo."
