Yesterday, Judge Robart issued an Order that denied Motorola’s motion to overturn the jury’s verdict that Motorola breached its RAND obligations in dealing with Microsoft on standard essential patents (SEPs) for IEEE 802.11 WiFi standards and ITU H.264 video compression standards. Judge Robart’s ruling here indicates that assessing compliance with a RAND obligation is a
Rep. Goodlatte circulates second discussion draft on patent reform that would require pleading SSO obligations
Yesterday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va) released a second discussion draft of a patent reform bill directed to concerns about patent litigation abuse, which draft replaces his prior May 2013 discussion draft. This second discussion draft includes the requirement to plead what standard setting organization obligations apply to an asserted patent, stating:
Federal Circuit oral arguments being held today in Apple v. Motorola “Posner appeal” (No. 12-1548)
This morning, the Federal Circuit will hold arguments in appeal no. 12-1548, Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., which is the appeal of Judge Posner’s dismissal of both parties’ patent infringement claims for failure to prove entitlement to a remedy (either injunctive relief or damages). This is a case that could have vast consequences for
Appropriate royalty base for standard-essential patents a disputed issue in Innovatio IP Ventures bench trial
Another week, and another standard-essential patent trial. Whereas last week brought us the jury’s verdict finding a RAND breach in the Microsoft-Motorola case, the trial this week relates to a determination of the appropriate RAND royalty rate for Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC’s WiFi-essential patent portfolio (consisting of patents previously owned by Broadcom).
You may
Jury finds Motorola breached RAND obligations, awards $14.5M in damages to Microsoft
This afternoon the RAND breach of contract case between Microsoft and Motorola went to the jury, and this evening — after just a few short hours of deliberation — the jury came back with its verdict. According to Curtis Cartier (@curtis_cartier on Twitter), a freelance journalist who attended the trial, the jury found
International Trade Commission to fully review decision finding no violation of Section 337 in InterDigital 3G patent case
Today, the U.S. International Trade Commission issued its delayed decision on whether it would review ALJ David P. Shaw’s Initial Determination finding no violation of Section 337 in In the Matter of Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-800. (For some background, see our previous post on the ALJ’s
The Comparative Law and Economics of Standard-Essential Patents and FRAND Royalties (a new paper from Prof. Thomas Cotter)
The week leading up to Labor Day was a relatively quiet one on the SEP litigation front, with the exception of the ongoing Microsoft-Motorola RAND jury trial in Seattle (scheduled to wrap up and go to the jury tomorrow). Late last week, the ITC also postponed until tomorrow the decision whether to review the ALJ’s
RANDomness — Microsoft-Motorola RAND jury trial is underway
Yesterday marked the start of the long-awaited Microsoft-Motorola RAND breach of contract jury trial, taking place before Judge James L. Robart in the Western District of Washington. Over the next week or so, the jury will hear testimony on whether Motorola breached its IEEE- and ITU-related RAND obligations through its licensing negotiations and course of
Samsung tells ITC that in light of USTR veto, Ericsson should drop its standard-essential infringement claims (Inv. No. 337-TA-862)
A couple weeks ago, we noted that Ericsson had submitted a Notice of New Authority in its ITC case against Samsung (Inv. No. 337-TA-862) concerning the USTR’s recent disapproval of the exclusion order in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-794. In this Notice of New Authority, Ericsson requested that presiding Administrative Law Judge David P. Shaw
RANDomness
- InsideCounsel magazine recently published an article of ours, titled “Establishing Federal Rules of Patent Procedure“. This article is the first in a three-part series in which we examine certain “patent reforms” that have been proposed in response to the perceived rise in assertions by non-innovative patent assertion entities. In this article, we look