Philips and Quectel Finish Post-Trial Briefing on Injunction and Enhanced Damages
The Delaware patent fight between Koninklijke Philips and Chinese cellular module maker Quectel Wireless Solutions is now waiting on the judge. Court records show that on 28 October 2026 the last reply briefs on the post-trial motions were filed, together with a request for oral argument. Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly will decide whether Philips gets an injunction against 29 module models, whether the willful infringement award should be increased, and whether Quectel can undo the verdict.
The verdict so far
Philips filed suit in December 2020, and the case sat on hold while a related US International Trade Commission case ran its course. At the August 2026 trial, the jury found no infringement of US Patent No. 7,944,935, but found that Quectel directly and indirectly infringed all eight asserted claims of US Patent No. 7,831,271. That patent covers reducing a terminal's transmit power in advance so an extra signal fits within its power limit. The jury awarded US$3,009,749 and found the infringement willful.
What each side wants
Philips is asking for a permanent injunction against 29 listed Quectel module models until the '271 patent expires on 30 September 2027, with an ongoing royalty as a fallback. It also wants enhanced damages because of the willfulness finding, which under US law can go up to three times the award, plus supplemental damages and expert fees. Quectel has renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law and opposes the injunction. In mid October the court also extended the stay on enforcing the money judgment while the motions are pending.
Why it matters
Cellular modules sit inside trackers, meters, payment terminals and many other connected devices, so a module-level injunction can reach downstream customers quickly. With the patent expiring in less than a year, the injunction would have a short life even if granted. The bigger practical stakes may be the enhanced damages ruling and the ongoing royalty rate, which could shape licensing talks for other older 3G and 4G patents.
The Indonesian angle
Indonesian device makers and importers that build in foreign cellular modules usually rely on the supplier's licences and indemnities. This case shows those assumptions can be tested at the module level. Indonesia's Patent Law (Law No. 13 of 2016, as amended) allows patent holders to claim compensation and seek provisional orders at the Commercial Court, but we are not aware of an Indonesian court decision on cellular standard patents of this kind. Checking supply contracts for patent indemnities is a sensible step.
Sources
Do you or your clients need trademark, patent, annuity or industrial design work in Indonesia? We handle filings, prosecution and renewals, with updates in English. Email us for a quote.
Contact UsIf you enjoyed this article on our portal, you can buy me a coffee via the PayPal link below.
PayPal
