Well-known non-practicing entity Intellectual Ventures has been fairly quiet on the litigation front, particularly as compared to other high-profile NPEs. And when IV has filed suits, it has generally targeted technology companies, such as semiconductor manufacturers, handset makers, or telecom service providers. But earlier this week, IV branched out into new territory, suing the
U.S. International Trade Commission expected to rule tomorrow on availability of exclusion orders for infringement of FRAND standard-essential patents (337-TA-794)
Spring has been an interesting time in the world of standard-essential patent litigation. Last month brought us Judge Robart’s groundbreaking RAND-setting opinion in Microsoft v. Motorola; this month, it’s the ITC’s turn. Tomorrow is the (thrice-extended) target date in In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music
A round-up of proposed “patent reform” laws on Capitol Hill
Vermont recently became the first state to pass legislation specifically directed to patent issues (a law which, as noted by Camilla Hrdy at Patently-O, has interesting federalism implications and may or may not run into federal preemption issues). But even more patent-related activity has been taking place here in Washington, DC. Over the last
Samsung accuses Apple of violating ITC rules and misrepresenting “key facts” (Inv. No. 337-TA-794)
While there are just a few days to go before the target date for the ITC’s long-awaited Final Determination in Samsung’s Section 337 investigation against Apple, that hasn’t stopped the parties from continuing to spar. Last week, Apple filed a “Notice of New Authority and New Facts” with the ITC, directing the Commission’s attention to
Motorola tells Fed Circuit that Microsoft-Motorola RAND opinion supports its appeal of Judge Posner decision (Apple v. Motorola)
A couple weeks ago, Apple directed the Federal Circuit’s attention to the Microsoft-Motorola RAND-setting opinion. Apple claimed that in a variety of ways, Judge Robart’s decision supported Apple’s arguments on appeal. This past Friday, Motorola filed a brief response to Apple’s citation of supplemental authority — and in it, Motorola claims that the reasoning of
Patent pool One-Blue and several licensors file suit against Imation over Blu-ray patents
This past Wednesday, the Blu-ray patent pool One-Blue, LLC and several of its licensors (Philips, Panasonic, Pioneer, and Sony) filed a patent infringement lawsuit in Delaware district court, accusing Imation Corp. of infringing several patents that are either essential or related to the Blu-ray Disc Assocation’s (BDA) Blu-ray standards.
[One-Blue v Imation Complaint]Continue Reading Patent pool One-Blue and several licensors file suit against Imation over Blu-ray patents
Realtek draws ITC’s attention to recent N.D. Cal. order & preliminary injunction (Inv. No. 337-TA-837) — and Apple does too
Earlier this week, we discussed N.D. Cal. Judge Ronald Whyte’s order granting partial summary judgment and issuing a preliminary injunction in a Realtek v. LSI district court case. As we explained in our post, while the district court found that LSI had breached its contractual RAND obligations by filing an ITC complaint without first making
Baseball has the Best Rules: Using Arbitration to Solve FRAND Disputes
Last month, we briefly discussed an article that proposed that “baseball-style” arbitration be used to resolve FRAND licensing disputes. The following guest post about this article was authored by David Balto, a former Policy Director of the Bureau of Competition for the Federal Trade Commission who currently has his own public interest antitrust practice here in Washington, DC. David’s views expressed below are his own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the authors of The Essential Patent Blog, Dow Lohnes PLLC, or Dow Lohnes’s clients.
Baseball has the Best Rules: Using Arbitration to Solve FRAND Disputes
How to calculate Fair, Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory (FRAND) royalties seems like one of the most intractable problems firms, standard setting organizations and the courts are grappling with. No wonder, there is sparse authority and relatively few litigated cases.
Two of the most thoughtful scholars on antitrust intellectual property issues — Professors Mark Lemley and Carl Shapiro — have weighed in and issued a paper outlining an interesting solution to the FRAND licensing problem and it provides a clarion call for how to grapple with the problem.Continue Reading Baseball has the Best Rules: Using Arbitration to Solve FRAND Disputes
Vermont Attorney General files suit against notorious scanner non-practicing entity
We’re going to take a quick time-out from standard-essential patent issues for a minute for a brief post on non-practicing entities. These NPEs are getting more and more attention from industry, regulators, and Congress, with a multitude of recent legislation (e.g., the SHIELD Act, the Patent Quality Improvement Act and the End Anonymous Patents
Recent Supreme Court grant of petition for certiorari may have implications for standard-essential patent disputes (Medtronic v. Boston Scientific)
Back in September 2012, we posted a Patent Alert on the Federal Circuit’s decision in Medtronic v. Boston Scientific. In that case, the court held that in an action where a licensee in good standing seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement (so any counterclaim for infringement would be foreclosed by the existence of the