Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
- Law360
- Law360 UK
- Law360 Pulse
- Law360 Employment Authority
- Law360 Tax Authority
- Law360 Insurance Authority
- Law360 Real Estate Authority
- Law360 Healthcare Authority
- Law360 Bankruptcy Authority
- Products
- Lexis®
- Law360 In-Depth
- Law360 Podcasts
- Rankings
- Leaderboard Analytics
- Regional Powerhouses
- Law360's MVPs
- Women in Law Report
- Law360 400
- Diversity Snapshot
- Practice Groups of the Year
- Rising Stars
- Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar
- Sections
- Adv. Search & Platform Tools
- About all sections
- Browse all sections
- Banking
- Bankruptcy
- Class Action
- Competition
- Employment
- Energy
- Expert Analysis
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- Product Liability
- Securities
- Beta Tools
- Track docs
- Track attorneys
- Track judges
Ericsson Inc. et al v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., et al
Case Number:
6:12-cv-00894
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Multi Party Litigation:
Class Action
Judge:
Firms
- Alston & Bird
- Fish & Richardson
- Jackson Walker LLP
- Kirkland & Ellis
- McKool Smith
- Potter Minton
- Sterne Kessler
- Wick Phillips
- Willkie Farr
- Winston & Strawn
Companies
Sectors & Industries:
-
April 22, 2013
Ericsson Ramps Up Essential Patent Battle With Samsung
Ericsson Inc. escalated its standard-essential patent fight with Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. on Monday, accusing the rival electronics giant of infringing eight more telecommunications patents used in TVs, computers and other devices.
-
March 20, 2013
Samsung Hits Back At Ericsson In Patent Licensing Battle
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. countersued Ericsson Inc. in Texas federal court Monday over 12 telecom patents, alleging Ericsson — "unhinged" by its exit from the mobile device market — has refused to license its standard-essential telecom patents on fair terms.
-
November 27, 2012
Ericsson Sues Samsung Over Refusal To License Patents
Ericsson Inc. said in Texas federal court Tuesday that Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.'s refusal to license Ericsson telecommunication patents, despite lengthy negotiations involving senior management from both companies, left the plaintiff with no choice but to file suit.