The invalidation procedure initiated by Xiaomi in Germany for Philips hevc related patents has been withdrawn. This means that the hevc patent dispute between Xiaomi and Philips is likely to have been settled. The hevc dispute between Xiaomi and Philips is an integral part of the case that some licensors of access advance (hereinafter referred to as "AA") patent pool sued Xiaomi and vestel. This event is one of the most influential events in the dispute caused by AA's controversial double billing problem.
This is the second time for the implementation of reconciliation, and if it has happened in the direction of human development, it will happen in the second time this year. Perhaps the slow progress of hevc technology popularization process is expected to usher in a breakthrough. Of course, it remains to be seen whether this case can force AA to solve its controversial double billing problem, so as to clear the obstacles to hevc patent licensing.
AA vs Xiaomi, vestel: 0:2
In August 2020, the patent licensors of AA patent pool - Ge video, IP bridge, Philips and Mitsubishi sued Xiaomi, while GE video, IP bridge, Philips and Dolby sued vestel, a Turkish set-top box manufacturer. Since then, the disputes between AA and patent implementers such as Xiaomi and vestel have been made public. For details of the case, see "video coding license meets the changing situation! Access advance patent pool is frustrated in German courts", which will not be repeated here.
At the beginning of this year, Ge video and Dolby, among the four licensors, were ruled by the Dusseldorf court to be inconsistent with the frand principle in their lawsuit with vestel, and their application for injunction was rejected. This result has attracted the attention of the industry. According to FOSS patent, a well-known intellectual property blog: "I have seen some cases (such as Microsoft v. Motorola). In these cases, the patent pool rate is used as an important reference point to help the judge make the frand judgment. However, as far as I know, it is unprecedented for the court to determine that the license condition of the patent pool is" non frand ". This will be a humiliating result. "
This ruling directly forced AA to adjust its license return policy. Although it changed the soup without changing the dressing (see behind Samsung's lawsuit: access advance license return policy changed the soup without changing the dressing), its impact can also be seen. In terms of time, the settlement between Philips and Xiaomi also has a sequential relationship with Duesseldorf's ruling. The adverse judgment of Duesseldorf court is likely to promote Philips to seek a rapid settlement, and Xiaomi is likely to obtain permission conditions that are more in line with its expectations. This is the second time this year that the incident has appeared in favor of the trend of implementers.
Impact: shake AA's adherence to licensing conditions
As one of the founders of AA, Philips chose to settle with Xiaomi as soon as possible in this lawsuit, which undoubtedly shakes the license conditions that AA now insists on.
On the one hand, if the settlement does occur, will it further affect the litigation results between Xiaomi and Ge video, Mitsubishi and IP bridge? stand a good chance. At present, the mainstream method to determine the standard necessary patent license rate is the combination of top-down method and comparable license method. Unlike the saying of "license upper limit" in the field of video codec in the field of cellular communication, the comparable rate occupies a great weight in this kind of litigation. In the follow-up litigation, if Xiaomi submits the license conditions reached with Philips to the court, it is likely to become an important reference evidence for the court's judgment.
On the other hand, as previously reported by jiwei.com, the obligee of AA overlaps with MPEG La, another patent pool that provides hevc license. The licensors of AA such as Samsung, Canon and NEC are or have been licensors of MPEG La, of which Samsung is the largest Licensor of AA. MPEG La was established long before AA. Many implementers have joined MPEG la. If they join AA, there will be the problem of duplicate license (and AA fee is higher). Xiaomi is one of them, which is also the root of this lawsuit. The settlement with Philips means that the scope of obligees who have reached a license with Xiaomi in the AA patent pool is further expanded. In other words, for Xiaomi, the scope of AA's repeated license is larger. If AA and Xiaomi settle and negotiate in the future, the problem of repeated billing and inconsistent rates (AA rates are higher) will become more prominent. The repeated license is the main reason why the Dusseldorf court found that the license conditions of AA do not comply with the principle of frand. It is conceivable that if the problem of double billing is not solved, the rationality of AA license is difficult to stand.
In this sense, the reconciliation between Xiaomi and Philips may be expected to be a breakthrough in the licensing obstacles of hevc and guide the licensing in the field of video codec in a more reasonable direction. Of course, it depends on the follow-up of the event. Jiwei.com will continue to pay attention to this matter.