Yesterday, the European Commission issued decisions in two antitrust proceedings centered around the enforcement of standard essential patents (SEPs). The decisions, one involving Samsung and the other Motorola, essentially create a “safe harbour” for willing licensees of FRAND-encumbered SEPs to avoid an injunction and address the circumstances under which an SEP holder may seek injunctive
April 2014
Patent Case Alert: Supreme Court adopts more flexible, deferential test for attorney fee shifting in patent cases (Octane Fitness and Highmark)
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two opinions (Octane Fitness and Highmark) that create a more flexible, deferential standard for determining what constitutes an “exceptional” patent case in which a district court has discretion to award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party. The Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s rigid test that required…
Federal Circuit rules no per se prohibition against injunctions for standard essential patents (Apple v. Motorola)
Today the Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited decision in the appeal from Judge Posner’s ruling that denied both Motorola and Apple damages and injunctive relief in Apple v. Motorola. Among other things, the Federal Circuit ruled that there is no per se rule that prohibits a party from seeking injunctive relief on a standard essential…
N.D. Cal. excludes expert damages testimony that based royalty rate on patents’ hold-up value
With standard-essential-patent (SEP) damages discussions frequently focused on how to calculate a RAND rate, one can sometimes forget that not all SEPs are subject to [F]RAND obligations, which raises the issue whether and to what extent a reasonable royalty rate would be different between RAND and non-RAND encumbered patents. Last week, N.D. Cal. Judge Lucy…
Back to state court: Vermont’s unfair competition suit premised solely on state law
After being removed to federal district court last May, the Vermont Attorney General’s suit against non-practicing entity MPHJ is being sent back to state court. The decision holds that the AG’s unfair competition claims arising from MPHJ’s patent enforcement efforts belong in state court and raises the question of whether other patent demand letter jurisprudence …
Senate postpones vote on patent reform bill until after recess
The Senate Judiciary Committee was scheduled to mark-up and vote on the Patent Transparency and Improvements Act of 2013 last Thursday but again postponed the vote until after the Senate recess. The mark-up and vote have been postponed several times before. As we discussed in a prior post, the bill, if passed would require…
Infringement contentions identifying technical standards are insufficient to identify specific products-at-sssue under N.D. Cal. Patent Local Rules
As the Senate continues to weigh patent reform measures focused on improving preliminary disclosures in patent litigation, courts continue to distinguish between sufficient and insufficient disclosures under their own patent local rules. According to a recent ruling from the Northern District of California, a generalized claim that any products practicing a technical standard infringe an…
Update on patent litigation reform legislation
Hopefully the current patent reform effort to address perceived patent litigation abuse problems will result in carefully targeted tweaks to–without harming–our otherwise thriving U.S. patent system, the greatest system for innovation that the world has ever known (see our Patent Forest post). The Senate is currently considering this balance. The Senate Judiciary Committee was…
Jury finds BlackBerry did not infringe NXP’s alleged standard essential patents (NXP v. BlackBerry)
Yesterday, a Florida jury returned a verdict that BlackBerry did not infringe NXP’s patents alleged to be essential to the IEEE 802.11 WiFi and JEDEC eMMC standards and that the asserted patent claims were invalid. The role of BlackBerry’s standard essential patent defenses is not clear from the record, though it appears to have been…
