I. Case Overview

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit filed by South Korean company Pantech against Asus Japan, concerning key patents related to LTE communication standards in the field of communication technology. Pantech alleges that 16 communication devices (smartphones) sold by Asus Japan infringe upon two of its patents, and is seeking an injunction to cease the infringement, the destruction of the relevant products, and compensation of 10 million yen plus interest.

II. Case Basic Information

(1) Case Number: Reiwa 4 (Wa) No. 7976

(2) Plaintiff: Pantech Corporation, holder of two patents related to LTE communication (Nos. 4982653 and 5694479), alleging that 16 communication devices sold by ASUS Japan infringe its patent rights.

(3) Defendant: ASUS JAPAN Co., Ltd. and its affiliated company ASUS Taiwan. The allegedly infringing products include multiple smartphone models using the LTE communication standard.

(4) Involved Patents:

1. Patent No. 1: Method and apparatus for receiving ACK/NACK signals via the PHICH channel (Claims 16 and 24).

2. Patent No. 2 in this case: A method for mapping the PHICH channel onto OFDM symbols (Claims 1-5), with the plaintiff asserting only Claim 5 (mobile terminal device).

(5) Infringing Products: The 16 LTE communication terminals sold by the defendant (compliant with the 3GPP standard TS 36.211).

(6) Points of contention:

1. Technical feature dispute: The parties debated the technical features of the patent, particularly regarding the definition and application of the “m'” and “l′i” parameters. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's product falls within the scope of the patent protection, while the defendant claimed that it did not use the plaintiff's patent technology.

2. Patent Validity: The defendant argued that the plaintiff's patent lacks novelty due to the existence of prior art (Document B1), and raised issues regarding the requirements for support, clarity, and priority claims. However, the court did not support this view.

3. FRAND Conditions: The plaintiff, relying on the FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) principle, demanded that the defendant pay patent license fees. However, the parties failed to reach an agreement during negotiations.

III. Legal Analysis

(1) Patent Infringement Determination: The court found that the technical solutions of the defendant's products corresponded to the technical features of the plaintiff's patent, constituting infringement.

(2) Abuse of Rights Defense: The defendant argued that the plaintiff's exercise of patent rights constituted an abuse of rights, but the court did not adopt this argument.

(3) Patent Validity: The court did not support the defendant's claim that the plaintiff's patent was invalid, concluding that the plaintiff's patent met the requirements for novelty and other necessary conditions.

(4) Application of FRAND Conditions: The court considered the impact of FRAND principles on patent licensing fees, noting that both parties had deficiencies. However, the defendant demonstrated a willingness to grant FRAND licenses, thus not constituting an abuse of rights.

ASUS    Responded late (requiring supplier confirmation), but not in bad faith; the case (●omitted●) meets FRAND conditions.

Pantech    Failed to timely provide the 5G claim table (April 2022) and adequately explain the basis for fee calculations (provided in May 2021).

IV. Judgment Results

(1) Cease Infringement: The court ordered the defendant to cease infringing activities and refrain from continuing to sell infringing products.

(2) Compensation Amount: The defendant must pay the plaintiff a certain amount of compensation and interest, with the specific amount not detailed in the judgment.

(3) Litigation Cost Allocation: Litigation costs are shared between the plaintiff and defendant in proportion, with the plaintiff bearing 121/122 and the defendant bearing 1/122.