STOCKHOLM - Swedish mobile telecom gear maker Ericsson is suing Apple Inc for patent infringement, Ericsson said on Friday.
Ericsson said it filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) requesting an exclusion order against Apple's products for infringing Ericsson patents that are essential to the 2G and 4G/LTE standards.
It also filed a second ITC complaint seeking an exclusion order and multiple complaints in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas requesting damages and injunctions for infringement of patents "critical to many other aspects of Apple's devices".
This is the latest major legal battle Apple finds itself in this week. Fresh off a $532.9 million jury win against Apple , a Texas company is again suing the tech giant, this time over the same patents' use in devices introduced after the original case was underway.
Smartflash LLC aims to make Apple pay for using the patent licensing firm's technology without permission in devices not be included in the previous case, such as the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus and the iPad Air 2. The trial covered older Apple devices.
On Tuesday, a jury in federal court in Tyler, Texas found that Apple willfully violated three Smartflash patents with devices that use its iTunes software. The patents relate to accessing and storing downloaded songs, videos and games.
The new complaint was filed on Wednesday night in the same court in Tyler, where Smartflash is also based and which over the past decade has become a focus for patent litigation. Smartflash licenses its patents but does not make products itself.
"Smartflash filed the complaint to address products that came out too far into the last proceedings to have been included," Smartflash's attorney, Brad Caldwell, told Reuters on Thursday. "Apple cannot claim they don’t know about these patents or understand that they are infringing. A diligent jury has already rejected those arguments."
A representative from Apple could not immediately be reached for comment.
Apple said after Tuesday's verdict it would appeal and that the outcome was another reason reform was needed in the patent system to curb litigation by companies that make money off patent royalties instead of products.