Sharp Sues Oppo Over LTE Patent Infringementby Anton Shilov on March 10, 2020 10:00 AM EST
Sharp has filed a lawsuit for patent infringement against Oppo and Oppo Japan. Sharp is accusing Oppo of infringing several of its 4G/LTE patents covering communication technologies used in smartphones.
The lawsuits were filed in the District Court Munich I, the District Court Mannheim, and the Tokyo District Court. Sharp has not disclosed which of its patents have been infringed and which damages and remedies it seeks. Meanwhile, many patent infringement cases are filed in order to eventually settle them and sign a broad cross-licensing agreement.
One noteworthy thing about the lawsuit — and that is perhaps an important one for the story in general — is who sues who. Sharp belongs to Foxconn Electronics, the world’s largest contract producer of electronics based out of Taiwanese. Oppo is a part of BBK Electronics, a Chinese company, which owns brands like OnePlus, Vivo, and Realme. In fact, BBK is one of the world’s largest makers of smartphones in the world, well ahead of Apple. So while Sharp and Oppo aren't necessarily huge names, the companies behind them are some of the biggest in the business.
All told, an LTE patent infringement suit at this point in time comes off as a bit odd. Widespread use of LTE began almost a decade ago, so companies have been shipping LTE gear for several years now. And, with the exception of perhaps Qualcomm's legal scuffles, LTE had seemed to be a largely settled matter, with the major patents and patent pools well understood. None the less, here we are.
Oppo yet has to comment on the lawsuit against itself and how it plans to defend itself.
- Foxconn Takes Control of Sharp
- Foxconn Acquires Belkin for $886m: Gets Belkin, Linksys, Wemo
- The Oppo Reno Ace: 90 Hz AMOLED 6.5-inch HDR10+ with 65W Charging
- The OPPO Reno 10x Zoom Review: Bezeless Zoom
- Zoom Zoom: Testing 10x Hybrid Zoom in Dublin with the Huawei P30 Pro and Oppo Reno 10x Zoom
- Oppo Demonstrates 5G Smartphone at MWC 2019
Post Your CommentPlease log in or sign up to comment.
View All Comments
Retycint - Wednesday, March 11, 2020 - linkExactly proving my point. ksec put forward a rubbish argument, which I debunked and mocked with the "how do you know it isn't" line.
close - Wednesday, March 11, 2020 - linkMost of the confusion (especially eek2121's) is probably coming from what a patent troll is. I tried to dispel this by literally mentioning what that is in my comment - a company hoarding patents and suing, not producing anything from those patents - yet people insist on substituting their own definition of "well they sued and have no strong case = troll" and also a penchant for commenting without any hard data to support them. Armchair anything.
close - Wednesday, March 11, 2020 - link@eek2121: "A company filing baseless lawsuits is still a patent troll, even if they make/sell products."
No... that's quite literally wrong. Unless you don't like to get bogged down by definitions. A quick google will help you. Also while your assumption that the lawsuit is baseless & all may turn out to be correct, you have no argument to support it at this time.
Let me give you an easy to understand example that is likely to also be true: I think you were paid $3 and a bag of old Cheetos to post the comment above. This makes you a religious zealot.
The implication of your comment is that: the fact that the first part of my statement *can* technically be true makes it true, and the fact that I can match a small percentage of a definition to your actions qualifies you for that definition. Did I do it right?
supdawgwtfd - Wednesday, March 11, 2020 - linkStill no editor or proof reader huh?
Every. Single. Article.
"based out of Taiwanese". Taiwan you mean...
Dr.Neale - Wednesday, March 11, 2020 - linkSo, you noticed that error, too.