2013

Yesterday, we covered some of the wide-ranging reaction to U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman’s decision to veto the ITC’s exclusion order in Inv. No. 337-TA-794.  One recurring theme was the question of what this ruling might mean for other SEP-related Section 337 cases that are currently at the ITC (or may be brought in the…

Even though it was released on a Saturday, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman’s disapproval of the exclusion and cease & desist orders in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-794 has understandably generated a lot of chatter in industry and the patent world.  Many are hailing the decision, while others disagree with the veto and/or believe it should…

Today, U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Michael Froman issued his long-anticipated decision regarding the U.S. International Trade Commission’s exclusion order in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-794 involving Samsung and Apple.  And as you may have heard by now, the verdict is…

The exclusion order has been “disapproved of” — i.e., overturned, vetoed, not going to go into…

As we told you last week, there will be a free upcoming webinar in conjunction with the AIPLA Standards and Open Source Committee.  The webinar will feature a panel of attorneys and industry professionals discussing the consequences that may stem from decisions in some recent standard-essential patent cases of note, including the RAND breach…

Back in June, we alerted you to a number of infringement suits brought by licensors to the MPEG LA ATSC patent pool in the Southern District of Florida, targeting several television  manufacturers — ViewSonic, Craig Electronics, and Curtis International.  Yesterday, a different group of MPEG LA licensors filed suit on patents related to a different…

Earlier this week, the ITC issued the public version of ALJ David P. Shaw’s Initial Determination finding no violation of Section 337 in in In the Matter of Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-800 — the ITC’s investigation into InterDigital’s accusations that Huawei, Nokia, and ZTE infringed several…

The sprawling patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois involving Innovatio IP Ventures is often in the headlines not because it involves standard-essential patents, but because it involves (in part) patent infringement claims brought by a non-practicing entity (Innovatio) against “end users” (coffee shops, hotels, restaurants, etc.).  But last Friday, Judge James F. Holderman issued a ruling that may be the first of its kind for a district court — a ruling addressing the “essentiality” of patent claims, separate and apart from the issue of infringement.  If you’re not familiar with this case (and even if you are), bear with us — we’ll try to explain just why this ruling is so “essential” (sorry).

[2013.07.26 (Dkt 851) Order re Essentiality]

Warning — this is going to be a long post.Continue Reading Judge issues “essential” first-of-its-kind ruling, finding all of Innovatio’s WiFi-related patent claims to be 802.11-essential (and subject to RAND obligations)

Today, we attended a hearing held on Capitol Hill by the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights regarding standard-essential patents.  The hearing, titled “Standard Essential Patent Disputes and Antitrust Law,” featured testimony from four witnesses from diverse SEP-related backgrounds.

…

A month ago, we alerted you to 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 — the ITC’s investigation into InterDigital’s accusations that Huawei, Nokia, and ZTE infringed several 3G-essential InterDigital patents.  Yesterday, the ITC finally released the public version of the ~450 page Initial Determination.

[337-TA-800 Initial Determination (PUBLIC)]

As we noted in our post on the parties’ respective petitions for review, while the ALJ found no infringement of any valid patent claims (and therefore no violation of Section 337), he did address the Respondents’ FRAND-related defenses — and made some interesting findings.  After the jump, we’ll take a quick look at these findings, which begin on page 417 of the Initial Determination.Continue Reading ITC releases public version of ALJ’s Initial Determination in InterDigital 3G patent case (Inv. No. 337-TA-800)

Last week, we noted that the Federal Circuit will hold a September 11 oral argument in Apple and Motorola’s appeals of Judge Posner’s June 2012 decision to dismiss the parties’ competing infringement suits.  The “Posner appeal” will provide the Federal Circuit with the opportunity to weigh in on SEP issues in a patent infringement context, such as how the FRAND framework may constrain damages, and whether a party with a FRAND commitment can ever satisfy the eBay standard for an injunction.  But this appeal is not the only one involving Apple, Motorola, and FRAND/SEP issues that is pending before the Federal Circuit.

Also last week, Apple filed its opening brief in this other Federal Circuit appeal — the appeal of Judge Barbara Crabb’s November 2012 decision to dismiss Apple’s FRAND-related breach of contract suit on the eve of trial (after, at least in Judge Crabb’s eyes, Apple failed to commit to entering into a FRAND license at the rate she might set — see this link for a brief refresher on the details of this particular case).  The case before Judge Crabb (and consequently, this appeal) is more like Microsoft’s original complaint in the Microsoft-Motorola case, as opposed to the case before Judge Posner — there are no infringement claims, only claims brought by Apple that relate to Motorola’s alleged violation of its FRAND commitments (breach of contract, antitrust, etc.).  Apple frames the issues in this appeal as follows:

  1. Apple provided evidence that Motorola violated § 2 of the Sherman Act by making deceptive FRAND commitments and by failing to timely disclose its intellectual property. The Noerr-Pennington doctrine immunizes a party from antitrust liability only where the challenged conduct is the petitioning of a government entity. Did the district court err in holding that Apple’s antitrust claim was barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine?
  2. Apple would not commit to accept a license offer from Motorola without knowing the price. Did the district court err by dismissing Apple’s contract claims on that basis, where Apple had no contractual obligation to accept any offer from Motorola?
  3. Apple asserted three declaratory judgment claims that would have settled uncertainty regarding Motorola’s patent rights and obligations. Did the district court err in refusing to adjudicate those claims?
  4. Does this Court have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over this appeal because the suit encompasses declaratory judgment claims relating to Motorola’s patent suit?

According to Apple, the answer to each of these questions is a resounding yes.  After the jump, we’ll take a look at Apple’s brief in a bit more detail.
Continue Reading Apple files opening appellate brief in second Motorola/FRAND-related Federal Circuit appeal