2013

In a post yesterday, we discussed Nokia’s amicus brief submitted “in support of neither party” in the Apple-Motorola FRAND Federal Circuit appeal (Judge Posner edition).  The amicus brief recently filed by BlackBerry (formerly Research In Motion) is now public, and it is very similar to Nokia’s — at least when it comes to the issue of the availability of injunctive relief.  While not expressly supporting Motorola, BlackBerry echoes Motorola’s (as well as Nokia’s) argument that injunction relief should not be categorically precluded for FRAND-encumbered standard-essential patents.

[2013.05.07 BlackBerry Amicus Brief]

Coincidentally, BlackBerry also now finds itself on the receiving end of a new patent infringement complaint from Canadian non-practicing entity Wi-LAN, which is based on BlackBerry’s alleged infringement of a patent that Wi-LAN claims is essential to the ETSI 3GPP Long-Term Evolution (LTE) telecommunications standard.


Continue Reading BlackBerry files amicus brief supporting availability of SEP injunctions in Fed Circuit FRAND appeal (and also gets sued by Wi-LAN for LTE patent infringement)

CAFCEarlier this week, both Nokia and BlackBerry (formerly Research In Motion) were both granted leave to file amicus briefs with the Federal Circuit in the Apple v. Motorola appeal of Judge Posner’s June 2012 decision to dismiss the parties’ respective infringement claims.  BlackBerry’s brief is still confidential, but Nokia’s is now publicly available.

[2013.05.06 Nokia Amicus Brief]

While Nokia’s amicus brief is styled as being “in support of neither party,” it’s clear that Motorola should be the one happy here — Nokia asks the Federal Circuit to reverse Judge Posner’s decisions relating to Motorola’s standard-essential patents at issue, both with respect to damages and injunctive relief.  Nokia claims that Judge Posner’s ruling (1) creates a bright line rule against injunctions that violates Supreme Court precedent, and (2) unnecessarily devalues standard-essential patents by mandating that any damages be based on the smallest salable unit, which runs contrary to industry practices in SEP licensing.  A summary is after the jump.


Continue Reading Nokia amicus brief urges Federal Circuit to reverse Judge Posner’s standard-essential patent rulings

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…

Many district courts around the country have specialized local rules that govern patent litigation, in order to assist the court and the parties to manage the myriad issues that come up in the vast majority of complex patent cases.  Local patent rules often control the schedule and format for the parties’ infringement and invalidity contentions, claim construction proceedings, etc.  The Northern District of California, where France Telecom and Marvell are embroiled in a patent suit over Marvell’s alleged infringement of a digital coding patent, is one such district that uses local patent rules.  In a ruling handed down this past Friday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathaniel Cousins found that it was proper for France Telecom to rely on two ETSI 3G cellular standards in formulating its infringement contentions.  This ruling shows that — with some caveats — it is permissible to use an industry standard as a basis for infringement contentions in districts with local patent rules.

[2013.05.013 (D.E. 79) Granting Motion to Compel in Part]Continue Reading Infringement contentions based on industry standards sufficient to comply with N.D. Cal. local patent rules (France Telecom v. Marvell)

Late Friday, Microsoft responded to the letter brief filed by Motorola last week in the parties’  RAND breach of contract case.  In its responsive letter brief [LINK], Microsoft disputes Motorola’s versions of the facts, and contends that Motorola has long known about the bases on which Microsoft would be seeking damages for breach of contract.  In particular, Microsoft claims that Motorola has known for over a year that Microsoft would be seeking to recover the costs of moving its EMEA distribution center from Germany to the Netherlands.  Microsoft suggests that Motorola’s efforts to limit Microsoft’s damages theories are nothing but a pretext for Motorola to actually dismiss Microsoft’s claims for damages for breach of contract.
Continue Reading RAND damages discovery dispute continues – Microsoft says Motorola’s brief is a pretext to dismiss damages claim

European-Flag1We generally focus on U.S.-specific standard-essential patent issues here at the Essential Patent Blog, but often there are some international developments that are worth noting.  Today brings us one of those, as the European Commission announced that it has sent a Statement of Objections to Motorola Mobility as part of its investigation into Motorola’s potential…

The district court in the Microsoft-Motorola RAND breach of contract case has already decided some unique issues of first impression, and will take on some more in the next phase of the case.  And if the parties don’t settle, an appeal is likely to follow.  This raises an interesting question, one that doesn’t necessarily have a clear answer — which appellate court would have jurisdiction over an appeal of Judge Robart’s RAND-related rulings?

The Western District of Washington sits within the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (which, as noted below, has already heard an interlocutory appeal in this case).  But as you may know, in order to preserve uniformity in patent law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit in Washington, DC is the court designated by Congress as the appeals court with exclusive jurisdiction for nearly all patent cases.  The Microsoft-Motorola case (at least the part which has garnered the most attention) involves a breach of contract issue relating to patents, standard-setting, and patent licensing issues.  So, which is it — the 9th Circuit or the Fed Circuit?

Brace yourselves – this will take a couple thousand words.


Continue Reading Which appeals court has appellate jurisdiction over the Microsoft-Motorola RAND case?

CAFCWe’ve got an update from the Apple-Motorola Federal Circuit FRAND jurisdictional dispute.  Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied Motorola’s motion to dismiss Apple’s FRAND appeal (or transfer the case to the 7th Circuit).  For a recap on the issues surrounding this motion and the Apple-Motorola FRAND appeal (this one from…

Last week we covered the dispute between Innovatio IP Ventures and Cisco, Motorola Solutions, and NETGEAR (the “WiFi Suppliers”) over the essentiality and non-essentiality of various 802.11-related patent claims asserted by Innovatio.  The WiFi suppliers argued that all of Innovatio’s asserted patents were essential to the 802.11 family of wireless networking standards, and therefore subject to IEEE RAND obligations.  For its part, Innovatio disputed whether dozens of claims were in fact essential.

Late last week, Innovatio filed a brief supporting its arguments regarding the non-essentiality of certain asserted claims [LINK].  Innovatio argues that the WiFi Suppliers fail to apply the IEEE’s Patent Policy in making their determination of essentiality, rendering their contentions incorrect.Continue Reading Innovatio argues that WiFi Suppliers misinterpret IEEE definition of “essentiality,” scope of RAND obligations

ForestJudge Robart’s RAND decision in the Microsoft v. Motorola case is receiving well-warranted attention, and for good reason.  Of course, we here at the Essential Patent Blog find this developing area of law fascinating.  So I welcomed Tom Keene’s invitation to discuss Judge Robart’s decision live on Bloomberg TV’s “Bloomberg Surveillance” program this past Monday, April 29.  The focus was to be on the particular question of whether Google’s purchase of Motorola has panned out, given recent Motorola patent litigation losses.  So I prepared through immersive study of Judge Robart’s decision, as well as our prior postings and the details of the various Motorola cases in the so-called Smartphone Wars.  Forget the forest or the trees — I stared at every branch, twig and leaf.

And Monday morning, in a remote studio in Washington, DC, Tom Keene’s voice from New York came into the earpiece asking an important question I never expected: What about the forest?
Continue Reading The Patent Forest