{"id":805,"date":"2024-08-23T07:38:53","date_gmt":"2024-08-23T07:38:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/?p=805"},"modified":"2024-08-23T07:44:44","modified_gmt":"2024-08-23T07:44:44","slug":"philips-settles-multi-year-sep-dispute-with-thales-telit-calamp-laird-xirgo-not-off-the-hook-with-respect-to-quectel-modules","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/philips-settles-multi-year-sep-dispute-with-thales-telit-calamp-laird-xirgo-not-off-the-hook-with-respect-to-quectel-modules\/","title":{"rendered":"Philips settles multi-year SEP dispute with Thales\/Telit: CalAmp, Laird, Xirgo not off the hook with respect to Quectel modules"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

Context:<\/strong> In late 2020, Philips sued Thales and several of its customers over the alleged infringement of standard-essential patents (SEPs) by its wireless communications modules used in various IoT products. During the course of the proceedings, Thales sold the relevant business unit to Telit (July 29, 2022 press release (in French)<\/a>). The dispute also gave rise to a motion for an antisuit injunction that was denied, a denial that the Federal Circuit affirmed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What’s new:<\/strong> A stipulated dismissal (with prejudice) of a case in the District of Delaware shows that the parties have settled the dispute. obviously through a license agreement. The Thales\/Telit customers who were also being sued in the same district over the use of Thales\/Telit modules still have to defend against infringement allegations relating to their use of Quectel modules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Direct impact:<\/strong> This has taken longer than the average SEP dispute, but Philips has a rather successful licensing program. Earlier this month it turned out that a recent settlement with OPPO also involved the assignment of some 5G SEPs to Philips (August 8, 2024 ip fray<\/strong> article<\/a>), but OPPO is in a stronger position to do such deals than Thales.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wider ramifications:<\/strong> The dispute could have resulted in some interesting clarification on the availability of antisuit injunctions targeting ITC proceedings, but as no import ban issued, there was no showing of imminent irreparable harm that would have warranted the grant of a preliminary injunction. Other than that, the dispute was a run-of-the-mill patent enforcement campaign. The settlement comes at a time where some other patent disputes have also been resolved as ip fray<\/strong> reported (mostly on LinkedIn).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Here’s the stipulated dismissal, which the court subsequently rubberstamped:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n