Atlas Global Technologies LLC v. TP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd.
2:21-cv-00430
| E.D. Tex. | Jul 28, 2023Background
- Atlas Global sued TP-Link for infringement of five patents Atlas says are standard-essential to Wi‑Fi 6; Atlas submitted an IEEE Letter of Assurance promising to license on FRAND terms.
- In June 2021 Atlas sent letters/emails to TP‑Link representatives inviting FRAND licensing discussions; TP‑Link did not respond, and Atlas filed suit in November 2021.
- TP‑Link counterclaimed (Feb. 2023) for breach of contract, alleging Atlas (1) failed to offer FRAND terms or communicate pre‑suit and (2) failed to disclose one or more asserted patents to the IEEE.
- Atlas moved for summary judgment arguing (a) no evidence of nondisclosure or lack of communication, (b) the IEEE Letter of Assurance and Bylaws do not require a pre‑suit FRAND offer or further disclosure, and (c) defendants are not shown to be willing licensees.
- The magistrate judge analyzed the Letter of Assurance and IEEE Bylaws, concluding the Letter is a blanket assurance that does not require patent identification or a pre‑suit FRAND offer.
- Recommendation: grant summary judgment and dismiss TP‑Link’s breach‑of‑contract counterclaim with prejudice because it fails as a matter of law (no contractual or evidentiary basis).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Atlas breached the IEEE Letter of Assurance by failing to disclose one or more asserted patents to the IEEE | Atlas checked the blanket assurance box; LOA permits, but does not require, identifying specific patent claims | TP‑Link says Atlas failed to disclose asserted patents to IEEE | Held: No breach — LOA allows (but does not require) identification; no evidence of a separate specific assurance |
| Whether Atlas was required to offer FRAND terms or otherwise communicate with TP‑Link before filing suit | LOA and IEEE Bylaws require licensing on FRAND terms but do not impose a pre‑suit offer/notice requirement | TP‑Link contends case law and RAND obligations require a pre‑suit FRAND offer/communication | Held: No contractual or legal pre‑suit offer obligation; counterclaim fails as a matter of law |
| Proper interpretation of the IEEE Letter of Assurance and Bylaws | LOA is a blanket commitment to grant licenses on FRAND terms; obligation is to grant, not to make a pre‑suit offer or identify patents | TP‑Link reads LOA/Bylaws to require more proactive pre‑suit disclosures/offers | Held: Contract interpretation favors Atlas; LOA/Bylaws do not impose the duties TP‑Link alleges |
| Whether TP‑Link has shown it is a willing licensee or otherwise has standing to enforce the LOA in the manner it asserts | Atlas argues TP‑Link produced no evidence showing willingness to be a licensee or other facts supporting enforceability as pleaded | TP‑Link relies on expert opinions and case law to assert enforceability | Held: TP‑Link failed to adduce evidence creating a genuine dispute on willingness/licensee enforcement; counterclaim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 795 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2015) (SSO declarations can create enforceable obligations regarding standard‑essential patents)
- HTC Corp. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, 12 F.4th 476 (5th Cir. 2021) (third‑party beneficiary rights and RAND/FRAND obligations)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment: movant may show absence of evidence)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard for genuine disputes of material fact)
- Authentic Apparel Grp., LLC v. United States, 989 F.3d 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (contract interpretation is a question of law often amenable to summary judgment)
- Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. LSI Corp., 946 F. Supp. 2d 998 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (discussing pre‑suit RAND communications in the SEP context)