The US’ Department of Justice is to investigate whether Huawei stole patented IP as part of the design process for its EnVizion 360 smartphone camera
Chinese tech giant, Huawei, has strenuously denied allegations made by the US’ Department of Justice over possible patent infringement relating to its smartphone camera technology. An article in the Wall Street Journal last week, revealed that the DoJ was launching a fresh investigation into Huawei over possible intellectual property theft.
However, the Chinese tech giant accused the US government of launching the investigation on a purely opportunistic basis, in an attempt to undermine its business opportunities in key markets across the world, particularly in Western Europe.
The US has persistently tried to strong arm its allies into banning Huawei from their 5G network rollout programmes, with little success to date.
In its latest case, the DoJ alleges that Huawei infringed the intellectual property of Mr. Rui Pedro Oliveira when it designed its EnVizion 360 panoramic camera, an allegation that Huawei termed “extortionate” in nature.
“Mr. Oliveira proceeded to feed a false narrative to the media in an attempt to tarnish Huawei’s reputation. He made further efforts to exert pressure on Huawei through senior government officials, trying to make the company cede to his demands and hand over large sums of money,” a Huawei spokesperson told Total Telecom.
Huawei acknowledged that its representatives met with Mr Oliveira in May 2014 and listened to his pitch, but that it had ultimately decided to design its own camera. In a release to the press, Huawei highlighted the fact that Mr Oliveira’s designs were for a camera with a single, expandable lens, whereas its own camera made use of numerous lenses, to highlight the difference between the designs.
“It’s clear that Mr. Oliveira is taking advantage of the current geopolitical situation. He is pushing a false narrative through the media in an attempt to capitalise on a dispute. This type of behavior should not be encouraged, nor should it be considered rational justification for a criminal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice,” the spokesperson added.