Antitrust

Subscribe to Antitrust via RSS

It’s no secret that government agencies in the United States and abroad are paying more attention to standard-essential patent issues.  More evidence of this trend came this past Friday, when Deputy Assistant Attorney General Renata B. Hesse of the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice delivered a speech at the Global Competition Review Antitrust Law Leaders Forum in Miami.  Hesse’s speech makes it clear that FRAND licensing issues are a high priority for the DOJ’s antitrust division, and that the agency remains open to exploring new ways of enforcing FRAND commitments — potentially including pursuing standard-essential patent holders for violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act (anticompetitive monopolies or attempts to monopolize).
Continue Reading Antitrust Deputy Assistant AG’s speech may foreshadow increased DOJ enforcement activities relating to standard-essential patents

gavelWe’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

In a letter sent to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office late last week,  the American Antitrust Institute expressed its approval of the USPTO’s plan to implements rules requiring patent holders to provide more transparency regarding ownership interests in patents and patent applications.  The AAI’s letter claims that, among other considerations, these transparency provisions would have positive effect on the licensing of standard-essential patents and in helping companies deal with assertions for patent assertion entities or non-practicing entities.
Continue Reading American Antitrust Institute supports USPTO’s proposal for requiring more patent ownership transparency

Germany

While much of the attention over standard-essential patent litigation focuses on disputes taking place in the United States, the U.S. is not the only venue seeing these showdowns.  SEP-related issues have also arisen in Australia, in Korea, and in Europe (both in the courts and in European Commission investigations).  The courts in Germany — which has recently become a hotbed for patent litigation — have developed a unique procedure for dealing with the assertion of standard essential patents.  Named for a 2009 decision by the Federal Supreme Court of Germany, this is commonly known as the “Orange Book” defense or procedure (or sometimes as the dolo agit or good faith defense).  In this post, we aim to provide a background of this case and some examples of cases where the Orange Book defense has been invoked.


Continue Reading A RANDom glance abroad: German Patent Courts and the “Orange Book” defense

Today, a notice and request was published in the Federal Register, inviting the public to comment on the FTC’s proposed consent agreement with Google and Motorola Mobility in FTC File No. 121-0120.  This proposed consent agreement would close the FTC’s investigation into certain Google/Motorola Mobility business practices concerning licensing and assertion of standard-essential patents that Motorola previously agreed to license on RAND terms (for more details, see our prior post on the consent agreement).
Continue Reading FTC invites public to comment on consent agreement with Google/Motorola Mobility

Lost in the all of the publicity surrounding the FTC’s consent decree that ended its investigation of Google and Motorola Mobility yesterday is the fact that while the FTC’s decision not to proceed with action against Google for its search practices was unanimous, its decision to issue a complaint and order relating to Google’s enforcement of its SEPs was not — Commissioner Maureen K. Olhausen submitted a dissenting statement.  (Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch issued a separate statement, but voted in favor of issuing the complaint).  The mere fact that the decision was not unanimous isn’t that remarkable in and of itself, as the five-member Commission often reaches split decisions.  However, Commissioner Olhausen’s dissent raises some issues about the FTC’s action that warrant mentioning here.
Continue Reading A dissenting voice from the FTC/Google consent agreement

In a press conference that took place at 1pm Eastern time today, the United States Federal Trade Commission announced that it has entered into a consent decree with Google in which Google agreed to forego seeking injunctive relief as a remedy for infringement of SEPs that have been pledged to be licensed on RAND terms.  The FTC voted 4-1 in favor of the decision, with Commissioner Maureen Olhausen dissenting.
Continue Reading Google agrees to forego seeking injunctive relief for SEP infringement as part of FTC settlement