Panel: Ericsson entitled to jury trial in infringement case

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Court on Thursday reversed, vacated, and remanded a Central District ruling against European telecom giant Ericsson Inc., finding the lower court judge erred in denying the Stockholm-based company its right to a jury trial.

In its opinion, the federal appellate court held U.S. District Judge James V. Selna of Santa Ana "deprived Ericsson of its constitutional right to a jury trial" when he opted for a bench trial to settle negotiations between the company and Chinese electronics maker TCL over licensing 2G, 3G, and 4G network technology patents. TCL Communication Technology Holdings, LTD v. Ericsson Inc., 18-1363 (Fed. Cir., filed Dec. 5, 2019).

Ericsson sought the jury trial to resolve a patent infringement claim it alleged against TCL that lingered after the two companies consolidated their original suits in June 2015.

In a final pre-trial conference, Selna rejected Ericsson's request for a jury trial, acknowledging the company's assertions were correct, "but decided to proceed with a bench trial" to handle the infringement issue and award a release payment, court documents show.

That decision violated Ericsson's Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury to seek legal relief, which included the release payment, the federal appellate court ruled.

"We agree with Ericsson that the release payment term is legal in nature and thus entitled to a jury trial determination," the court wrote.

Because of that, the federal appellate court vacated Selna's other rulings in the case, including the judge's finding that Ericsson's licensing offers to TCL were not "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory." The court also vacated Selna's attempt to fashion a fair and reasonable licensing rate between the two.

The latter ruling caused an upheaval among mobile technology companies worldwide, leading to nearly a dozen amicus briefs lambasting Selna's decision after Ericsson appealed.

"[The] district court's decision in this case rested on multiple errors of law and should be reversed," wrote David S. Steuer of Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati PC in Palo Atlo on behalf of InterDigital Inc., a Pennsylvania-based mobile technology research and development company.

Steuer called Selna's decision to use a "top-down" analysis to determine the licensing rate "flawed and unreliable, rather than relying first on market-based evidence of comparable licenses."