Litigation Details for Huawei Technologies, Co, Ltd v. Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd. (N.D. Cal. 2016)

Huawei Technologies, Co, Ltd v. Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd. (N.D. Cal. 2016)

Docket		Date Filed	2016-05-24
Court	District Court, N.D. California	Date Terminated	2019-03-25
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	William Horsley Orrick III
Jury Demand	Both	Referred To	Joseph Spero
Patents	8,644,239
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Huawei Technologies, Co, Ltd v. Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd. (N.D. Cal. 2016)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2016-05-24	168	Order	’166 patent”); 8,812,848; 8,644,239 (“the ’239 patent”); 8,885,587; 8,885,583; 8,639,246…27 ’246 patent”); 8,412,197 (“the ’197 patent”); 8,996,003; and 8,724,613 (“the ’613 patent”). …26 Huawei has asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 8,369,278 (“the ’278 patent”); 8,416,892; 8,483,166 (“the …Samsung has asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 8,228,827, 8,315,195 (“the ’195 patent”), RE44,105, …8,457,588 (“the ’588 patent”), 8,509,350, 9,113,419, 8,619,726 (“the ’726 patent”), 8,761,130	External link to document
2016-05-24	191	Writ Issued	U.S. Patent Nos. 8,369,278; 8,416,892; 8,483,166; 8,812,848; 8,644,239; 8,885,587; 8,885,583; 8,639,246;…standard-essential patents (“SEPS”). In addition, Huawei alleged that Samsung infringes eleven of its patents: U.S.…alleged that Huawei infringes nine of its patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,228,827; 8,315,195; RE44,105; 8,…that they infringe the patents asserted against them and contend that the patents asserted against them…art exists that anticipates the patented claims or renders the patented claims obvious. Huawei has alleged	External link to document
2016-05-24	318	Huawei's Updated Election of Asserted Claims and Accused Products (REDACTE	• U.S. Patent 8,416,892, claims 1, 10 9 • U.S. Patent 8,644,239, claims 7, 18 10…currently asserted 5 patents to 4, narrows its currently asserted patent claims to no more than 10…10 • U.S. Patent 8,885,587, claims 3, 9 11 • U.S. Patent 8,724,613, claims 1, 5 12…purposes of assessing 17 infringement of Huawei’s patents. Therefore, provided that the parties enter or … 25 March 2019 3:16-cv-02787-WHO 830 Patent Both District Court, N.D. California	External link to document
2016-05-24	323	Notice (Other)	. R1-072330 + US Patent App. Pub. No. 2007/0230600 21 U.S. Patent 8,644,239 22 … U.S. Patent 8,885,587 6 14. U.S. Patent No. 8,472,368 7 15. U.S. Patent No. 8,472,368…-070189 + US Patent App. Pub. No. 2007/0230600 16 4. R1-071471 + US Patent App. Pub. No.…6. R1-072330 19 7. US Patent No. 8,477,698 + US Patent App. Pub. No. 2007/0230600 20 …094545 + U.S. Patent No. 8,472,368 11 19. TS 36.213 v8.5.0 + R1-094545 + U.S. Patent No. 9,036,564	External link to document
2016-05-24	330	Motion to Strike	Huawei patents 8,724,613 (“’613 patent”), 8,885,587 (“’587 patent”), 8,644,239 (“’239 patent”), 6 …and8,416,892 (“’892 patent”), and Samsung patents RE44,105 (“’105 patent”), 8,761,130 (“’130 7 patent”), 9,288,825…the ’105 patent. 7 D. Samsung’s ’130 Patent 8 Samsung’s ’130 patent relates to…9,288,825 (“’825 patent”), and 8,619,726 (“’726 patent”). 8 I. BACKGROUND 9 This Court… 4 contribution to the patent office during examination of the ’613 patent, which makes the contribution	External link to document
2016-05-24	331	Exhibit 17	8,483,166; 8,644,239; 8,885,587; 8,412,197; and 8,724,613) (collectively, “Huawei Patents”), and the…innovation, as the ‘166 Patent. 3. US8644239 132. US 8,644,239 was issued to Bingyu…“Unwired Planet Patents”), the six Huawei patents asserted in this case (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,416,892; …Planet Patents are not technically comparable to the Huawei Patents. The Unwired Planet Patents do not…COMPARISON BETWEEN UNWIRED PLANET PATENTS AND ASSERTED HUAWEI AND SAMSUNG PATENTS ..........................	External link to document
2016-05-24	333	Exhibit A	Page 4 of 20 US. Patent Feb. 4, 2014 Sheet 1 M4 US 8,644,239 B2 …Page 5 of 20 US. Patent Feb. 4, 2014 Sheet 2 M4 US 8,644,239 B2 …Page 6 of 20 US. Patent Feb. 4, 2014 Sheet 3 of4 US 8,644,239 B2 …Page 7 of 20 US. Patent Feb. 4, 2014 Sheet 4 M4 US 8,644,239 B2 … US 8,644,239 B2 Qu et a].	External link to document

Litigation Summary and Analysis for Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | 3:16-cv-02787-WHO

Last updated: July 28, 2025

---

Introduction

Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., a leading global telecommunications equipment provider, initiated patent infringement litigation against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in the Northern District of California, under case number 3:16-cv-02787-WHO. The case, filed in May 2016, centers on allegations that Samsung infringed Huawei’s patents related to technology used in mobile devices and telecommunications infrastructure. This litigation exemplifies the intense competition and patent disputes characteristic of the high-stakes smartphone and telecom equipment markets.

---

Background and Case Initiation

Huawei’s complaint alleges that Samsung infringed multiple patents essential to LTE (Long-Term Evolution) standards—petitions that, if validated, could significantly impact consumer electronics and broadband services globally.[1] Huawei seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, and a declaration of patent infringement. Samsung, a major player with extensive patent holdings, counters that Huawei’s claims are invalid or non-infringing.

The case amplifies broader industry tensions regarding patent rights, standard-essential patents (SEPs), and fair licensing practices. As of the filing, Huawei asserted that Samsung’s products—particularly smartphones and tablets—incorporated Huawei’s patented technologies without authorization.

---

Legal Proceedings and Key Developments

Initial Motions and Discovery

Following the filing, the parties engaged in discovery, involving technical exchanges and patent claim construction disputes. Huawei sought injunctive relief and damages, asserting that Samsung’s infringing devices included flagship models such as Galaxy S series and Galaxy Note, which incorporated features covered by Huawei’s patents.

Patent Validity and Infringement Claims

Huawei’s patents targeted innovations in device antennas, power modulation, signal processing, and other LTE functionalities. Key patents involved aspects like data transmission efficiency and antenna performance. Huawei contended that Samsung’s infringement was willful and that Samsung benefited economically from using Huawei’s patented technology without licensing agreements.

Counterclaims and Defense Strategies

Samsung challenged the patents’ validity, asserting prior art that could invalidate Huawei’s claims. It also argued non-infringement, contending that its devices did not employ the patented technology as claimed or that the patents were overly broad or wrongly considered SEPs. Samsung engaged expert witnesses to support its case and advocated for a robust invalidity defense.

Settlement Attempts and Case Status

As of late 2018, the case had not resulted in a final judgment, but both parties explored potential settlement options amid ongoing litigations in other jurisdictions. The complexity of patent validity, licensing negotiations, and the global nature of the dispute distinguished this case within the broader landscape of telecom patent litigations.

---

Legal and Industry Implications

Patent Standard-Essentiality and FRAND Commitments

This case spotlights the contentious issue of fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing obligations associated with SEPs. Huawei’s assertion of such patents underscores the importance of transparency and licensing fairness in high-technology standards. Courts globally are increasingly scrutinizing whether patent holders have exercised their rights in good faith, balancing innovation incentives with market competition.

Impact on Patent Strategies and Innovation

The litigation emphasizes the necessity for companies in the tech sector to develop and defend robust patent portfolios strategically. Huawei’s aggressive assertion of patents aims to establish a strong position in licensing negotiations, while Samsung’s invalidity defenses reflect attempts to devalue patented innovations that could be costly to license.

Global Legal Landscape

While this suit was filed in California, subsequent developments have implications across jurisdictions, including China, Korea, and Europe. Complex cross-border patent enforcement remains a significant challenge, often necessitating multi-litigation strategies and diplomatic considerations.

---

Outcome and Current Status

As of publication, the litigation has yet to reach a conclusive judgment, though the case has influenced licensing negotiations and patent litigation strategies worldwide. The complexity of patent validity disputes, combined with globalization factors, suggests that resolution may require multi-faceted approaches, including licensing agreements, court rulings, or international arbitration.

New filings and related litigation in other jurisdictions have also impacted the strategic positioning of both firms. Notably, Huawei has intensified patent assertion campaigns globally, seeking licensing revenues, while Samsung continues to defend its product lineup vigorously.

---

Legal and Commercial Takeaways

• Patent validity remains a critical battleground: Companies must continuously evaluate the strength of their patent portfolios against prior art, especially for SEPs involved in global standards.
• FRAND obligations add complexity: Patent holders asserting SEPs face rigorous scrutiny regarding licensing fairness, making transparent negotiations essential.
• Strategic patent litigation can influence market dynamics: Huawei’s aggressive patent assertions serve as leverage in licensing negotiations or market entry strategies.
• Cross-border enforcement is intricate: Multinational companies must navigate complex legal environments and jurisdictional differences to protect their patent rights effectively.
• Innovation and patent management are intertwined: Protecting technological innovations via patents remains vital for maximizing commercial value and competitive advantage.

---

Key Takeaways

• Huawei’s litigation against Samsung underscores the importance of strategic patent portfolio management, especially around standard-essential patents.
• The case exemplifies the complexities of enforcing patents in the mobile communication industry, emphasizing the importance of validity defenses and FRAND compliance.
• Cross-border implications necessitate comprehensive legal strategies, considering varying patent laws and enforcement mechanisms.
• Patent disputes can serve as leverage in broader negotiations, influencing licensing terms, market access, and competitive positioning.
• Ongoing industry disputes highlight the need for clear and enforceable patent licensing frameworks to balance innovation incentives with fair competition.

---

FAQs

1. How does standard-essential patent (SEP) litigation impact the telecommunications industry?
SEPs are patents essential to industry standards like LTE and 5G. Litigation around SEPs influences licensing practices, innovation incentives, and the deployment of new technologies. Courts scrutinize FRAND compliance to prevent abuse of patent rights and promote fair competition.

2. What are the typical defenses used in patent infringement lawsuits between tech giants?
Common defenses include non-infringement, invalidity due to prior art, patent misuse, unreasonable claim scope, and non-essentiality for standards. Companies also argue that patents are not enforceable or that licensing obligations have been violated.

3. Why are global patent enforcement strategies complex in cases like Huawei vs. Samsung?
Differences in patent laws, enforcement mechanisms, and standard-setting regimes across jurisdictions require multinational companies to develop tailored strategies, often involving parallel litigations and negotiations in key markets.

4. What role do licensing negotiations play in patent disputes among industry leaders?
Licensing negotiations serve as a strategic alternative to litigation. Companies seek to license patents on fair terms to avoid lengthy legal battles, reduce litigation costs, and maintain market competitiveness.

5. How can companies protect their innovations and patents effectively amid such disputes?
Companies should maintain robust patent portfolios, continuously monitor patent landscapes, engage in proactive licensing and litigation preparations, and adhere to FRAND commitments when asserting SEPs to prevent disputes from escalating.

---

References

[1] Case filings and publicly available court documents for Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 3:16-cv-02787-WHO, Northern District of California.