Nokia v. OPPO is presently the most massive 5G-centric patent dispute out there. In July, Nokia sued the Chinese smartphone maker--one of the largest in the world--in a multiplicity of European and Asian jurisdictions, and has made additional filings since. OPPO, which holds many 5G patents itself, has started to bring counteractions against Nokia, four of which I have found out about in Germany. The stakes are even higher in Ericsson v. Apple, but those two parties still have a license agreement in place (while the one between Nokia and OPPO expired at the end of June), which is why there aren't any Ericsson v. Apple infringement cases yet.
There is consensus in the wireless industry that Apple underpays. In a UK litigation it turned out that Apple's cumulative patent royalty costs are--and this is just an order of magnitude--at a level of about 1% of its sales. If major standard-essential patent (SEP) holders like Nokia and Ericsson can't seize the 5G opportunity to get Apple to pay a lot more this time around, it won't ever happen--or at least not for approximately another decade.
Compared to major smartphone patent disputes, Nokia v. Daimler (10 patents-in-suit) was just a B movie, though it had an effect of transcendental importance as it proved that the automotive industry can and will take car-level patent licenses in the end. OPPO is no Daimler, though. First, while car makers generally exhibit behavior that exposes them to ever more credible accusations of being unwilling licensees, OPPO does not have any history of infringement: it merely appears to disagree with some patent holders on royalty rates, but there are no signs of hold-out. Second, OPPO alone is a more sophisticated and effective litigant than the totality of Daimler and its tier 1 (i.e., direct) suppliers.
For both Nokia and OPPO, their dispute is about much more than the substantial volume the deal will ultimately represent. Nokia is known to have major renewals coming up with Samsung (where only some sideshows have been resolved) and, especially, Apple. It would benefit from a quick settlement with OPPO--on Nokia's preferred terms--with a view to those other negotiations and potential litigations. OPPO, however, will face royalty demands all the time, from a diversity of patent holders large and small, given its market position. There is no question that both Nokia and OPPO would benefit from a quick settlement, but they wouldn't be fighting each other in courts around the globe if they had already identified a royalty rate that works for either party's purposes.
In late July I found out about the first three Nokia v. OPPO trial dates (all of them in Mannheim and over a total of four patents-in-suit). I'm now in a position to provide further information on the dispute, though I fear that this is already outdated--in the sense of "non-exhaustive"--at the time of publication as Nokia may have made additional filings that haven't become discoverable.
In some cases, Nokia accuses OPPO and OnePlus devices of infringement at the same time, but there are also patents that Nokia asserts against the two affiliate entities in different venues. Presumably, OnePlus devices have higher margins on average than OPPO devices, so Nokia expects to get leverage even from an enforcement against just one of the two product brands (if the courts reach divergent conclusions or if one ruling comes down far ahead of the other). In terms of venue choices, Nokia doesn't have faith in Dusseldorf anymore with respect to SEP cases, though this may change as the Dusseldorf judges are apparently trying to make their forum more attractive for SEP litigation.
Anti-antisuit injunction (Germany)
In case no. 21 O 8690/21, the Munich I Regional Court's 21st Civil Chamber (Presiding Judge Tobias Pichlmaier) granted Nokia an anti-antisuit injunction ("A2SI")--along with the usual A4SI--against OPPO. The Munich court (and more recently even the Dusseldorf court) grants A2SIs/A4SIs to prevent any interference with German patent infringement actions in the form of antisuit injunctions issued by foreign courts, and the factors that go into the analysis include a defendant's conduct in other disputes. OPPO once sought a global royalty determination by a Chinese court in its (meanwhile settled) dispute with Sharp. The Munich anti-antisuit injunction also shields Nokia's actions in other German venues (Mannheim, Dusseldorf).
Mannheim enforcement actions
Mannheim SEP cases:
against OPPO and its affiliate OnePlus, a pair of cellular standard-essential patents from the same family: EP2981103 (which won Nokia an injunction against Daimler) and EP3220562 on an "allocation of preamble sequences"
against OPPO and OnePlus, EP2145404 on a "method and apparatus for providing control channels for broadcast and paging services" (last year Nokia felt forced to stipulate to a stay of a case against Daimler over this patent, but fared better in the parallel nullity proceeding than the Mannheim court had expected)
EP3557917 on a "method and apparatus for providing efficient discontinuous communication", targeting OnePlus devices here while OPPO devices are being accused in a Munich action
against OPPO and OnePlus, EP2087626 on "additional modulation information signaling for high speed downlink packet access" (Nokia originally asserted this patent against Daimler in Dusseldorf, but withdrew it on the eve of the trial--as the Dusseldorf court had made a preliminary reference to the ECJ, which potentially would have resulted in further stays--and refiled in Munich, where the case never went to trial due to the settlement)
Mannheim non-SEP cases:
EP1700183 on a "method for secure operation of a computing device", targeting OPPO devices here while OnePlus devices are being accused in a Dusseldorf action
EP1741183 on a "front-end topology for multiband multimode communication engines", targeting OnePlus devices here while OPPO devices are being accused in a Dusseldorf action
against OPPO and OnePlus, EP1704731 on a "method and apparatus for indicating service set identifiers to probe for" (a WiFi patent)
Munich enforcement actions
Munich SEP cases:
against OPPO and OnePlus, EP2070217 on an "apparatus, method and computer program product providing multiplexing for data-non-associated control channel" (not previously seen in litigation, hearing scheduled for June 23, 2022)
against OPPO and OnePlus, EP2080193 on "pitch lag estimation" (not previously seen in litigation)
EP3557917 on a "method and apparatus for providing efficient discontinuous communication", targeting OPPO devices here while OnePlus devices are being accused in a Mannheim action listed further above
against OPPO and OnePlus, EP3396868 on a "method and apparatus for conveying antenna configuration information" (not previously seen in litigation)
against OPPO and OnePlus, EP1671505 on a "redundancy strategy selection scheme" (the Munich court previously showed a strong inclination to consider this patent standard-essential and pushed back the trial date in order to await developments in a parallel nullity proceeding, where Nokia fared better than one might have expected; meanwhile Nokia and Daimler settled)
Munich non-SEP case:
EP1728352 on "secure data transfer", targeting OnePlus devices here while OPPO devices are being accused in a Dusseldorf action
Dusseldorf enforcement actions
No Dusseldorf SEP cases discovered so far
Dusseldorf non-SEP cases:
against OPPO and OnePlus, EP2728964 on a "distributed multiradio controller"
against OPPO and OnePlus, EP3716560 on "processing transmission signals in radio transmitter"
EP1700183 on a "method for secure operation of a computing device", targeting OnePlus devices here while OPPO devices are being accused in a Mannheim action listed further above
EP1741183 on a "front-end topology for multiband multimode communication engines", targeting OPPO devices here while OnePlus devices are being accused in a Mannheim action listed further above
EP1728352 on "secure data transfer", targeting OPPO devices here while OnePlus devices are being accused in a Munich action listed further above
High Court of Justice in England (EWHC)
London SEP cases:
EP2087626 on "additional modulation information signaling for high speed downlink packet access" (also being asserted in Mannheim, listed further above)
a pair of cellular standard-essential patents from the same family: EP2981103 (which won Nokia an injunction against Daimler) and EP3220562 on an "allocation of preamble sequences" (also being asserted in Mannheim, see further above)
London non-SEP case:
EP3716560 on "processing transmission signals in radio transmitter" (also being asserted in Dusseldorf)
Tribunal judiciaire de Paris
Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 5, Barcelona
These are just four Western European jurisdictions, and cases are pending elsewhere, but I have yet to obtain more information.
Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:
