Coolpad takes Xiaomi to court; wants Redmi Note 5, Mi Max 2 and more banned

Coolpad has filed a lawsuit against Xiaomi regarding patent infringement. From a hint revealed by the company's CEO, it was thought that the lawsuit has been settled outside the court. But that's not the case. Coolpad has come up with an announcement that the lawsuit it filed against Xiaomi is before the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court. Notably, the lawsuit has been filed by Yulong Computer Technology, its subsidiary.

The company claims that Xiaomi caused a patent infringement. The patent is said to be listed as "Multi-mode mobile communication terminal interface system and method for call recording." It is demanding that Xiaomi stop the production as well as the sale of the Mi Mix 2, Redmi 5 Plus and Redmi 5 smartphones immediately. It is also seeking compensation for the economic losses.

Other patent infringements

Apart from the above-mentioned software-related patent, there are others as well. Coolpad has reported about other patent infringements those are related to the system UI, notifications and app icon management.

The company seems to be not ready to go easy with this case. The CEO Jian Chang hinted that they are intending to file lawsuits against other companies. It has been claimed that they have discovered that other companies have infringed almost 10,000 patents they hold. On the other hand, Xiaomi has reported that it has not got any court papers regarding the patent infringement lawsuit.

What Coolpad seeks from Xiaomi?

As per the media reports, Coolpad is seeking a ban on almost eight Xiaomi smartphones due to the patent infringement. The list of these devices includes the Xiaomi Mi Mix, Mi Max 2, Mi Note 3, Mi 6, Mi 5X, Redmi Note 4X, Redmi Note 5 and Redmi 5 Plus. The company demands compensation including legal fees, reasonable fees paid towards putting an end to the infringement and notarization fees.

As mentioned above, Xiaomi is yet to reveal a word regarding this. And, we need to wait for a judgment in this patent infringement case.

Via