Sharp and Samsung trade blows in patent spat

 

Japanese electronics manufacturer Sharp has filed a lawsuit against rival Samsung and its US subsidiaries Samsung Electronics America and Samsung Telecommunications America, alleging infringements of five of its patents on LCD-related technology.

The complaint, filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleges that a number of products infringe LCD-related patents that are owned by Sharp, including liquid crystal display (LCD) modules manufactured by Samsung and sold in the US by Samsung.

It also covers LCD TVs and LCD monitors which incorporate the LCD modules manufactured by Samsung and sold in the US by SEA. Mobile phones which incorporate the LCD modules manufactured by Samsung that are sold in the US by STA are also included in the action.

In the complaint, Sharp requests that the court award compensatory damages to Sharp and prohibit the sales of the infringing products. Sharp also requests a jury trial.

Sharp has negotiated in good faith with Samsung for an LCD patent licence since 2006, but has been unable to reach a deal through negotiations.

Copyright ©v3.co.uk


Sharp and Samsung trade blows in patent spat
 
 
 
Top Stories
Beyond ACORN: Cracking the infosec skills nut
[Blog post] Could the Government's cybercrime focus be a catalyst for change?
 
The iTnews Benchmark Awards
Meet the best of the best.
 
Telstra hands over copper, HFC in new $11bn NBN deal
Value of 2011 deal remains intact.
 
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...
Latest Comments
Polls
Who do you trust most to protect your private data?







   |   View results
Your bank
  39%
 
Your insurance company
  3%
 
A technology company (Google, Facebook et al)
  8%
 
Your telco, ISP or utility
  7%
 
A retailer (Coles, Woolworths et al)
  2%
 
A Federal Government agency (ATO, Centrelink etc)
  20%
 
An Australian law enforcement agency (AFP, ASIO et al)
  14%
 
A State Government agency (Health dept, etc)
  6%
TOTAL VOTES: 1802

Vote
Do you support the abolition of the Office of the Information Commissioner?