Yesterday Apple filed its opposition to Motorola’s motion to dismiss or transfer for lack of jurisdiction in Federal Circuit appeal No. 2013-1150. This is Apple’s appeal of Judge Crabb’s dismissal of the Apple-Motorola FRAND/antitrust action (W.D. Wis. No. 3:10-cv-00178)). Apple contends that the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction over Apple’s appeal of the dismissal of its declaratory judgment claims because (1) the hypothetical Motorola complaint at which Apple’s declaratory judgment claim was directed would be for patent infringement, and (2) the district’s court’s decision to dismiss the patent-specific DJ claims without prejudice does not deprive the Federal Circuit of jurisdiction. As we anticipated in our post on Motorola’s motion to dismiss/transfer, some of Apple’s arguments in its opposition raise some interesting questions about whether jurisdiction over this appeal will be consistent with past and potential future appeals of orders in the Microsoft-Motorola RAND case.
Continue Reading Apple: Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over Apple-Motorola FRAND/antitrust appeal
Microsoft-Motorola (W.D. Wash.) update: Court invalidates several claims of Motorola H.264-essential patents
In an order issued yesterday by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (that just hit the docket this afternoon), Judge James L. Robart granted Microsoft’s long-pending motion for partial summary judgment and invalidated thirteen claims of three patents Motorola alleged as essential to the AVC/H.264 video coding standard. Although this ruling stems from the infringement portion of the case, and the major issues between the parties involve the RAND breach of contract claims brought by Microsoft over Motorola’s entire 802.11 and H.264-essential patent portfolios, it’s possible that Judge Robart’s ruling could have some future effect on these RAND claims as well.
Continue Reading Microsoft-Motorola (W.D. Wash.) update: Court invalidates several claims of Motorola H.264-essential patents
Target dates set for Samsung-Ericsson, InterDigital ITC Section 337 SEP investigations
The statute that governs the U.S. International Trade Commission’s jurisdiction over patent infringement complaints requires the ITC to resolve its investigations into such complaints “at the earliest practicable time” Typically, ITC investigations will take anywhere from 12-18 months (depending on complexity, number of patents, etc.) from the institution of the investigation until the “target date,”
RANDomness: NPE Edition
- InformationWeek brings us the story of
Ashford.com’sEmob’s fight against Cronos Technologies, a well-known NPE, over a patent related to a “remote ordering system.” (InformationWeek) - Google’s Senior Vice President & General Counsel Kent Walker wrote an opinion piece for Politico, making the case for the Obama administration’s second term to include additional
Non-practicing entity AIM IP files new infringement suits over VoIP standard-essential patent
Two new SEP-related patent infringement complaints were filed this week in the Central District of California by AIM IP, a non-practicing entity based in Mission Viejo, CA. These complaints accuse Aastra USA, Inc. and AudioCodes, Inc. each of infringing claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,920,853, titled “Signal Compression Using Index Mapping Technique for the Sharing of Quantization Tables.” AIM IP accuses various Aastra and AudioCodes Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) devices of infringing the patent based on the devices’ compliance with and use of the ITU G.729 audio compression standard.
[UPDATE] After this was originally posted, we discovered several additional new suits filed by AIM IP over the ‘853 patent. These were filed against ClearOne, Digium, Media5, Obihai, and Patton Electronics, and are linked to below. [/UPDATE]Continue Reading Non-practicing entity AIM IP files new infringement suits over VoIP standard-essential patent
Innovatio Update: Wi-Fi manufacturers’ RICO, unfair competition claims targeting Innovatio rejected, but RAND issues remain
We’ve previously discussed the wide-ranging assertion activities of Innovatio IP Ventures LLC, a non-practicing entity that has targeted thousands of companies across the country over patents related to the IEEE 802.11 wireless networking (Wi-Fi) standard. And due to an amended complaint filed in October 2012 by Motorola Solutions, Cisco, and Netgear in the Northern District of Illinois, Innovatio has been facing a litany of charges relating to this licensing and litigation campaign. These charges include breach of contractual RAND obligations, state law unfair competition, civil conspiracy, and even violation of the federal civil RICO statute. In November, Innovatio moved to dismiss these claims. This week, Chief Judge James F. Holderman granted much of Innovatio’s motion, dismissing all of the claims except for the RAND-based breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims. This ruling is indicative of the substantial hurdles that potential licensees of standard-essential patents face in attempting to show when patent holders’ assertion of rights and licensing demands may cross legal boundaries — and it may also further muddy the already murky waters surrounding the scope of RAND obligations.
Continue Reading Innovatio Update: Wi-Fi manufacturers’ RICO, unfair competition claims targeting Innovatio rejected, but RAND issues remain
Patent Alert: Federal Circuit Finds Justiciable Controversy for Declaratory Judgment of No Indirect Infringement Liability
Today, February 5, 2013, in Arkema Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., No. 2012-1308, the Federal Circuit (Dyk, Plager, and O’Malley) found that an Article III case or controversy over indirect infringement liability existed between two competitors in the automobile refrigerant market. This case provides incremental insight into the circumstances under which a
RANDomness
- Patent Peace in South Korea: Samsung and LG Electronics have settled their contentious patent and trade secret dispute relating to organic light-emitting diode (OLED) technology that is widely used in flat-panel televisions and computer monitors. (via CNET)
- For the second time in a week, the Federal Circuit denied Apple’s request for an en banc
En banc Federal Circuit to hold oral argument Friday regarding patentability of software patents (CLS Bank v. Alice)
This Friday, February 8, an en banc United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hear oral arguments in CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. (No. 2011-1301), the latest Federal Circuit case to deal with the patentability of software-related patents and so-called business methods. Given that the technologies claimed in many standard-essential patents are often implemented in standards-compliant products via software, the Federal Circuit’s holding in this case may have resounding consequences for the world of SEPs and SEP-related litigation.
UPDATE: The Federal Circuit issued an en banc decision holding the claims invalid. Please see our May 13, 2013 post for more details.
A rundown of pending SEP-related Section 337 investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission
The United States International Trade Commission (ITC) is a quasi-judicial agency with broad investigative powers relating to trade practices. These powers include the ability to investigate unfair trade practices relating to the importation of products that infringe valid U.S. patents — so-called “Section 337 actions” (Section 337 actions can encompass other conduct, but are commonly used to target patent infringement). But because the ITC may only issue injunctive relief (via exclusion orders and cease & desist orders), and cannot award monetary damages, the assertion of standard-essential patents in Section 337 actions has become a subject of great debate. Within about a month, the Commission will issue a Final Determination in Investigation No. 337-TA-794 (involving Samsung and Apple) that may address the propriety of asserting FRAND-pledged SEPs in Section 337 actions. In the meantime, however, there are several ongoing ITC investigations where standard-essential patents are being asserted. Below is a brief summary of where each of these cases currently stand:
Continue Reading A rundown of pending SEP-related Section 337 investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission