Author: Xiao Yan
On April 21, LG Electronics sued TCL in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of seven of its U.S. patents: US79,82,803 (audio and video synchronization device and method), US7,839,452 (display device for digital television); US10,334,311 (method for providing external device lists and image display devices), US9,080,740 (flat lighting devices); US9,788,346 (for high-throughput wireless local access network systems), US10,499,431 for high-throughput wireless local access network systems. Involves digital TV and WiFi related technologies.
Indictment
In fact, the two companies have been in the midst of patent litigation disputes in recent years.
In 2019, LG Electronics launched three lawsuits against TCL in the courts of Mannheim and Düsseldorf in Germany, accusing TCL of infringing its 4G/LTE patents. LG Electronics believes that it began to issue several requests to TCL in 2016 to negotiate the license agreement, but was rejected. In a ruling last year, LG Electronics received a favorable verdict.
LG once again filed a lawsuit against TCL in the United States, which actually shows that LG Electronics, which is declining in the physical industry, is turning into an NPE after selling its mobile phone business. At present, in addition to 4G/LTE, LG Electronics has also launched patent claims for TCL in the two mature licensing markets of TV and WiFi.
In LG Electronics' indictment, a unilateral introduction was made to the timing of the licensing negotiations between the two parties:
From November 5, 2018 to TCL/TTE by email, to January 21, 2020, TCL replied to LG's email, and LG said that it received a reply four times to TCL. Prior to the conference call on July 9, 2021, LG said it sent 10 emails to TCL, and during the conference call that day, TCL said it needed extra time to evaluate LG's patents, but LG believes that this has been two and a half years since the first exposure to TCL.
LG therefore argued that TCL had not made a material response to TCL's patents or WiFi, including that TCL had not indicated non-infringement or invalidity.
Because the above content is only the words of LG's side, the specific situation in the negotiations between the two sides will be disclosed in more detail by the subsequent parties. The LG targets record this in the indictment as nothing more than an attempt to classify TCL as a non-bona fide licensor.
For TCL, there are many lawsuits experienced overseas, and it would be good to know where the boundaries of FRAND are. This article is mainly hoping that more Chinese companies that will participate in the licensing negotiations in the future will grasp the rhythm of the negotiations. The same record of the exchange of permit negotiations can also be found in the Sisvel v Ford case.