Case Background
Philips filed this patent infringement action in the District of Delaware on December 17, 2020. The original complaint asserted four patents against Quectel and several of its customers. The case was stayed in 2021 during a related International Trade Commission investigation. The Court reopened it in August 2025. Philips's Third Amended Complaint, filed March 6, 2026, narrowed the case to the ’935 and ’271 patents. Philips alleged that both patents covered features of the UMTS and LTE cellular standards. The accused products included Quectel's EG25-G, EG91, and BG96 modules. They also included Eagle modules and CalAmp, Xirgo, and Laird devices using Quectel modules. Philips's claims against CalAmp, Xirgo, and Laird were stayed in November 2025. Its claims against Eagle proceeded on a separate schedule until the Court stayed them on October 19, 2026. Quectel was the only Defendant at the August 2026 trial.
Cause
Philips alleged that Quectel infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,944,935 and U.S. Patent No. 7,831,271. The ’935 patent addressed how devices multiplexed data packets with different assigned priorities. According to Philips, strictly priority-based multiplexing could delay or starve lower-priority data. The patent described filling a larger data packet in portions, each selected from queues under a different rule. Philips said this approach used transmission capacity efficiently and helped meet quality-of-service delay requirements.
The ’271 patent concerned how a mobile terminal managed its maximum transmit power. According to Philips, terminals sometimes needed to send additional signals while already transmitting another signal. Sending both signals could push the terminal past its power limit. The patent described scaling down the first signal’s power in advance to make room for the additional signal. Philips asserted claims 1 through 8 of the ’271 patent.
Injury
Philips alleged that it had repeatedly offered Quectel a license to its patent portfolio, including the asserted patents. According to Philips, Quectel refused those offers. Philips claimed that Quectel had actual knowledge of the asserted patents since at least December 29, 2015. It alleged that Quectel nonetheless continued to infringe them. Philips further claimed that Quectel prolonged its use of the technology without paying while collecting substantial revenue. It characterized that conduct as willful and deliberate infringement.
Damages
Philips sought compensatory damages and costs, with prejudgment interest, for the alleged infringement. It also sought treble damages based on its allegation that the infringement was willful. Philips further requested attorneys' fees and other litigation expenses under 35 U.S.C. § 285. In addition, it asked the Court to preliminarily and permanently enjoin further infringement. The Third Amended Complaint did not specify a dollar amount.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Adam W. Poff | Robert M. Vrana | Parks Kingery | Beth Ann Swadley | Eley O. Thompson | Kevin M. Littman | Lucas I. Silva | Thomas Relyea | Alexis K. Juergens | Kimberly K. Dodd | Sarah E. Rieger | Adam R. Aquino [Terminated: 05/08/2026] | Alexis N. Stombaugh [Terminated: 04/01/2026]
Defendant(s): Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd.
Counsel for Defendant(s): Warren K. Mabey Jr. | Martina Tyreus Hufnal | Kevin P. Seltzer | Thomas H. Reger II | Elizabeth G.H. Ranks | Grier A. Conville | Katherine H. Reardon | Peter Hong | Lawrence Jarvis | Bryan J. Cannon | Matthew P. Mosteller | Mohammad Reza Kameli
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
The Third Amended Complaint contained two counts. Count I alleged infringement of the ’935 patent. Count II alleged infringement of the ’271 patent. Philips alleged direct infringement, induced infringement, and contributory infringement. It claimed that Quectel made, used, imported, sold, and offered to sell the accused products in the United States. Philips asserted that both patents were valid and enforceable.
The complaint identified ’935 claims 1 through 4, 9 through 12, and 17. By trial, Philips had narrowed those to claims 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, and 17.
Defense
Quectel denied infringement under any theory. It argued that Philips pointed to nothing within the accused products that infringed. Instead, Quectel said, Philips relied solely on a 3GPP specification. Quectel also contended that the asserted patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112. For example, it argued that ’271 claims 1 through 8 were indefinite, as the ITC had found.
Quectel relied heavily on the earlier ITC investigation, No. 337-TA-1240. It stated that the ITC had found that Quectel infringed neither patent. Quectel further argued that Philips failed to disclose the patents to ETSI in a timely manner. It claimed that this late disclosure made the patents unenforceable.
Quectel also filed counterclaims. They included breach of FRAND obligations and requests to declare both patents not infringed and invalid. Philips responded that ITC findings were not binding on the Court. On July 22, 2026, the Court denied Philips's motion to dismiss Quectel's two FRAND-related counterclaims. In July 2026, the Court also denied both sides’ summary judgment motions.
Jury Verdict
Trial began on August 24, 2026, before Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly. The jury returned its Phase I verdict on August 26, 2026. It found that Quectel did not directly infringe any asserted ’935 claim. The jury also found that Quectel did not induce infringement of those claims.
However, the jury rejected each of Quectel's invalidity challenges to the ’935 patent. It found that Quectel did not prove anticipation or obviousness for any asserted claim. The jury also rejected Quectel's argument that the claims recited only well-understood, routine, and conventional technology.
The jury reached a different result on the ’271 patent. It found that Quectel directly infringed claims 1 through 8. It also found that Quectel induced others to infringe all eight claims.
The jury returned its Phase II verdict on August 27, 2026. It awarded Philips $3,009,749 in damages. The jury also found that Quectel's infringement was willful.
Post-trial Motions
On September 15, 2026, the Court entered a non-final judgment of $3,009,749 in favor of Philips. The parties stipulated that Philips was entitled to post-judgment interest. On September 16, 2026, Philips moved for a permanent injunction under 35 U.S.C. § 283. It sought to bar Quectel from making, using, selling, or importing 29 listed module models in the United States. The request also covered products not more than colorably different in their 3G/UMTS High Speed Packet Access capabilities. The injunction would run until September 30, 2027, when the '271 patent expires.
In a joint status report, Philips said it would seek ongoing royalties as an alternative to an injunction. It also planned to seek enhanced damages based on the willfulness finding. Philips further listed motions for prejudgment interest, supplemental damages, expert witness fees, and attorneys’ fees.
Quectel said it planned to seek judgment as a matter of law on infringement, willfulness, and damages. It also planned to seek a new trial or, alternatively, a reduction in damages. Quectel cited insufficient evidence and unduly prejudicial statements made during trial. Quectel also said it would seek attorneys’ fees over the ’935 patent if Philips sought fees. The parties proposed deferring any attorneys’ fees motions until after any appeal.
Quectel opposed the injunction motion on October 7, 2026. It also moved to dismiss its own two FRAND-related counterclaims. On October 13, 2026, Quectel renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law. The same day, Philips moved for enhanced damages, supplemental damages, and expert fees and costs. On October 14, 2026, the Court extended the automatic stay on enforcing the money judgment.
Court Documents
Documents are available for purchase upon request at [email protected]
