Essential Patent Blog

Essential Patent Blog

The Source for Standard-Essential and Other Patent Litigation Issues

Tag Archives: D. Del.

District of Delaware’s Judge Robinson Issues Revised Scheduling Order for Patent Cases

Posted in District Courts
In the midst of ongoing congressional efforts at patent litigation reform (see Monday’s post for the most recent developments), U.S. District Court Judge Sue Robinson released a new scheduling order on Monday, directed to better managing the hundreds of patent cases before her in the District of Delaware. Resulting from “the lively and informative discussions” prompted by … Continue Reading

SanDisk sues PAE Round Rock for antitrust violations, breach of contract involving enforcement of former Micron patents

Posted in Complaints, District Courts, Litigation, Non-Practicing Entities
SanDisk brought suit against Round Rock Research in the District of Delaware last week, alleging that the patent assertion entity’s acquisition and enforcement of standard essential patents previously held by Micron Technology has violated federal and state antitrust laws and breached contractual commitments to license the patents on RAND terms. The action, Sandisk Corporation v. Round Rock … Continue Reading

Rockstar sued by Arris who manufactures equipment sold to cable operators involved in Rockstar litigation

Posted in Complaints, District Courts, Litigation, Non-Practicing Entities, Uncategorized
Yesterday Arris filed a declaratory judgment action in D. Del. against Rockstar based on Rockstar asserting alleged standard essential patents (SEPs) against cable operators who purchased Arris equipment (recall our Jan. 21, 2014 post about Rockstar lawsuits with cable operators).  Among other things, Arris seeks a declaration of the essentiality of Rockstar patents, what standard setting organization (SSO) obligations … Continue Reading

Judge Stark bifurcates Blu-ray SEP case to determine essentiality and FRAND rate before liability issues (One Blue v. Imitation, D. Del. 1:13-cv-917)

Posted in Court Orders, District Courts, Litigation
Yesterday Judge Stark followed an approach used by Judge Holdeman in the Innovatio WiFi case by bifurcating FRAND issues from liability where essentiality and a RAND royalty rate will be tried first in hopes the result will spur settlement, followed by discovery and trial on liability issues if still necessary.  Recall that this case arose … Continue Reading

InterDigital and Huawei Settle District Court and ITC Actions

Posted in District Courts, International Trade Commission, Litigation
On December 30, 2013, InterDigital and Huawei filed a stipulation to dismiss the pending Delaware district court action (13-cv-00008) without prejudice, indicating the parties entered into a “binding settlement agreement and agreement to arbitrate”.  The Court promptly dismissed the case. Yesterday, InterDigital and Huawei similarly moved to terminate the corresponding ITC action, Inv. No. 337-TA-868, with respect … Continue Reading

Radio stations sued on alleged HD radio standard essential patents

Posted in District Courts, Litigation, Non-Practicing Entities, Uncategorized
Lest we forget the prevalence of standards in many industries beyond smartphones and Wi-Fi, last Friday (Nov. 1), several radio stations were sued by patent monetization entity Wyncomm in D. Del. for infringing three patents alleged to cover “transmission of radio broadcasts using HD radio techniques further described by the IBOC [In-Band/On-Channel] Digital Radio Standard” … Continue Reading

Delaware judge pares down FRAND-related counterclaims in InterDigital district court cases

Posted in Court Orders, District Courts, Litigation, Non-Practicing Entities
This past Friday, Judge Richard Andrews of the District Court of Delaware held a hearing on InterDigital’s motions to dismiss several FRAND-related counterclaims in three district court cases InterDigital brought against Huawei, ZTE, and Nokia over 4G-essential patents.  For a brief refresher on the issues raised in InterDigital’s motions to dismiss — which have been … Continue Reading

Nokia opposes InterDigital’s motion to dismiss FRAND counterclaims

Posted in District Courts, Litigation, Non-Practicing Entities
If all of these InterDigital-related FRAND issues seem hard to keep track of, they are — InterDigital is currently suing Huawei, Nokia, Samsung, and ZTE all in a single ITC action (337-TA-868) and in separate parallel actions in Delaware (as well as some of the same parties in a different ITC case, 337-TA-800, where an … Continue Reading

An update on the InterDigital-Huawei/ZTE FRAND fight in Delaware: InterDigital’s reply in support of motion to dismiss FRAND claims

Posted in District Courts, Litigation, Non-Practicing Entities
FRAND issues are being hashed out in a lot of jurisdictions right now.  Microsoft and Motorola are warring in Washington state, Apple and Motorola are fighting at the Federal Circuit, and Apple and Samsung are awaiting the International Trade Commission’s upcoming ruling later this month.  Noted non-practicing entity InterDigital, meanwhile, has been trying to get … Continue Reading

Huawei, ZTE tell Delaware court that their FRAND claims against InterDigital should not be dismissed

Posted in District Courts, Litigation, Non-Practicing Entities
While InterDigital continues to press its claims of 3G- and 4G-essential patent infringement in the International Trade Commission against Huawei, Nokia, Samsung, and ZTE (Inv. No. 337-TA-868), the companies have also been fighting about FRAND-related issues in Delaware, where some of defendants have asserted FRAND-related counterclaims against InterDigital.  A few weeks back, we noted InterDigital … Continue Reading

InterDigital seeks dismissal of Nokia’s FRAND counterclaims

Posted in District Courts, Litigation, Non-Practicing Entities
Earlier this month we covered InterDigital’s efforts to dismiss Huawei and ZTE’s FRAND counterclaims, which were asserted against InterDigital in litigations in the U.S. District Court in Delaware.  Yesterday, InterDigital filed another motion to dismiss FRAND-related counterclaims in a different Delaware district court litigation — this time, InterDigital seeks to have Nokia’s FRAND counterclaims dismissed: … Continue Reading

Non-practicing entity Wyncomm LLC claims WiFi devices infringe former AT&T patent

Posted in District Courts, Litigation, Non-Practicing Entities
Just like with cellular standards, the widespread use of the IEEE 802.11 wireless networking (“WiFi”) standard often makes WiFi-compliant devices easy targets for patent infringement lawsuits — particularly suits brought by non-practicing entities.  The most infamous of these NPEs targeting WiFi is probably Innovatio IP Ventures LLC, who has accused thousands of businesses of all … Continue Reading

InterDigital asks Delaware court to dismiss Huawei, ZTE’s FRAND counterclaims

Posted in District Courts, Litigation, Non-Practicing Entities
The standard-essential patent battle between InterDigital and Chinese handset makers Huawei and ZTE rages on in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.  Recall that the parties are awaiting an Initial Determination in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-800, and are also involved in Inv. No. 337-TA-868.  In the companion district court cases to the … Continue Reading

Delaware district court denies motion to expedite FRAND determination in InterDigital case

Posted in District Courts, International Trade Commission, Litigation, Non-Practicing Entities
Last week, we posted about ALJ Robert K. Rogers’ decision to deny the motion brought by Huawei, Nokia, and ZTE to stay InterDigital’s latest standard-essential patent ITC case (Inv. No. 337-TA-868) pending a FRAND determination in district court.  On Thursday March 14, these parties’ efforts to seek an expedited FRAND determination took another blow.  Judge … Continue Reading

Huawei, ZTE claim that without FRAND determination, InterDigital will “perpetuate an endless cycle of ITC litigation” over standard-essential patents

Posted in District Courts, Litigation, Non-Practicing Entities
Yesterday, Huawei and ZTE filed a joint reply brief in support of their respective motions to expedite determination of the terms of a FRAND license for InterDigital’s standard-essential patents.  The parties reiterate their willingness to take a FRAND license to InterDigital’s patents and assert that a prompt resolution of FRAND issues will moot other issues … Continue Reading

InterDigital opposes Huawei/Nokia/ZTE’s efforts to stay ITC investigation, saying motion is “based on speculation upon speculation”

Posted in International Trade Commission, Litigation, Non-Practicing Entities
Yesterday, InterDigital filed its opposition to Huawei & ZTE’s motion (later joined by another respondent, Nokia) to stay Inv. No. 337-TA-868, which is the ITC’s investigation into InterDigital’s 3G/4G standard-essential patent infringement-based Section 337 complaint.  Much as it did in its prior opposition to Huawei/ZTE’s attempts to seek an expedited FRAND determination in Delaware district … Continue Reading

InterDigital calls Huawei/ZTE’s requests for expedited FRAND determinations “impractical” and “improper”

Posted in District Courts, Litigation, Non-Practicing Entities
Earlier this week we noted that Huawei and ZTE have asked the ITC to stay its investigation into InterDigital’s complaint of 3G/4G standard-essential patent infringement.  This was done in part because Huawei and ZTE have requested that the District Court of Delaware to expedite a determination of a FRAND rate for InterDigital’s patents.  Yesterday, InterDigital filed … Continue Reading

Huawei, ZTE seek expedited FRAND determinations in InterDigital 3G/4G standard-essential patent dispute

Posted in District Courts, International Trade Commission, Non-Practicing Entities
In early January, InterDigital filed a Section 337 complaint in the U.S. International Trade Commission against Huawei, Nokia, Samsung, and ZTE, accusing those companies’ 3G/4G-compliant smartphones and tablets of infringing several InterDigital patents (this is now ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-868).  Because the ITC cannot award monetary relief, it’s common for complainants to also file corresponding … Continue Reading
.