Last week we discussed a couple of amicus briefs in the Apple-Motorola Federal Circuit appeal that addressed standard-essential patent issues. Intel supported Apple’s view that injunctions should generally not be available for FRAND-pledges SEPs, while Qualcomm supported Motorola’s contention that there is no such blanket restriction. In this post, we’ll address two more briefs, both of which were filed by parties supporting Apple: (1) the Business Software Alliance, which is a trade association of software and hardware technology companies; and (2) a group of law school professors.
Qualcomm sides with Motorola on FRAND/SEP issues in Apple v. Motorola Federal Circuit appeal
Earlier today we summarized the amicus brief filed by Intel in the Apple v. Motorola Federal Circuit appeal, and we noted that a number of other not-yet-publicly-available amicus briefs were also filed with the court. Today, the amicus brief filed by Qualcomm hit the docket — and out of all of the recent amicus briefs, it’s the only one that was expressly filed in support of Motorola.
As it has consistently argued in the past, Qualcomm — a holder of a significant portfolio of SEPs — argues here that a FRAND commitment does not categorically preclude injunctive relief, and it urges the Federal Circuit to refrain from adopting such a rule. Qualcomm also argues against the particular methodologies of calculating reasonable royalty damages for both FRAND-pledged essential patents and non-essential patents (e.g., the so-called ex ante or incremental value rules) that certain amici have advocated for.
Continue Reading Qualcomm sides with Motorola on FRAND/SEP issues in Apple v. Motorola Federal Circuit appeal
Intel files amicus brief supporting Apple in Federal Circuit appeal of Judge Posner decision
Back in January, we summarized a number of amicus briefs filed by a diverse group of companies and organizations concerning the issues in the Apple v. Motorola Inc. Federal Circuit appeal of Judge Posner’s decision to dismiss the parties’ respective patent infringement cases. We noted that because the Federal Circuit extended the deadline to file amicus briefs until seven days after Motorola’s opening brief was due, more parties were certain to make their views on standard-essential patent and FRAND issues known to the court. Sure enough, several others filed amicus briefs last week. Yesterday, the amicus brief filed by Intel became publicly available.
As you can see from our summary below, Intel’s brief clearly supports Apple, at least with respect to Apple’s cross-appeal of the standard-essential patent issues in the case.
Continue Reading Intel files amicus brief supporting Apple in Federal Circuit appeal of Judge Posner decision
Motorola tells Federal Circuit Judge Posner’s ruling would inappropriately create a “categorical rule” against standard-essential patent injunctions
Late last week, Motorola Mobility filed its Responsive and Opening Brief in Federal Circuit Appeal No. 2012-1548 (the appeal from Judge Posner’s June 2012 decision to dismiss competing infringement claims in a case between Apple and Motorola). We’ve previously discussed the large number of amicus briefs filed with the Federal Circuit by a wide variety of parties addressing the issues of damages and injunctive relief with respect to standard-essential patents. Here, Motorola characterizes Apple as an “unwilling licensee” who wants to change the rules of how standard-essential patent licensing has long been done in the cellular industry. Motorola claims that Judge Posner’s rulings — which barred injunctive relief for Motorola’s FRAND-pledged standard-essential patent at issue, and limited damages to ex ante (pre-standard) value of the patent — “devalue essential patents,” “upset the settled expectations” of patent holders who contribute to industry standards, and “create disincentives” to participate in standard-setting activities.
Continue Reading Motorola tells Federal Circuit Judge Posner’s ruling would inappropriately create a “categorical rule” against standard-essential patent injunctions
Motorola, Apple dispute relevance of recent Supreme Court case to FRAND jurisdictional dispute
A quick update for those interested in the Apple-Motorola Federal Circuit FRAND appeal:
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Gunn v. Minton, where the Court determined that a plaintiff’s patent litigation-related state law malpractice claim did not “arise under” the federal patent laws and did not create federal jurisdiction under
Apple, Motorola continue fight over Federal Circuit FRAND jurisdiction: Motorola’s Reply Brief
Today, Motorola Mobility filed a reply brief in support of its efforts to dismiss Apple’s Federal Circuit FRAND appeal (or at least transfer it to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals). As you’ll recall, a few weeks ago, Motorola filed a unique motion to dismiss Apple’s appeal, claiming the Federal Circuit lacked jurisdiction because (for more info, see our original post on Motorola’s motion). Apple filed an opposition, asserting that the case was properly appealed to the Federal Circuit. In its relatively short reply, Motorola targets two particular assertions that Apple claims vest the Federal Circuit with jurisdiction: (1) that Apple’s declaratory judgment complaint was filed “in response” to a hypothetical complaint of patent infringement; and (2) that the dismissal of certain Apple claims without prejudice does not divest the Federal Circuit of jurisdiction.
Apple urges Federal Circuit to eliminate or minimize “causal nexus” requirement for permanent injunctions
This isn’t a necessarily a standard-essential patent issue (and it’s been covered by many others such as IPLaw360 and Groklaw over the past couple days), but as something that could affect how parties enforce standard-essential patent rights in U.S. courts, we thought it’d be worth a quick post. Earlier this week, Apple filed its opening brief in its appeal of Judge Lucy Koh’s decision to deny Apple a permanent injunction against Samsung. In her post-trial decision applying the eBay analysis and denying an injunction, Judge Koh found that Apple failed to demonstrate a “causal nexus” between Samsung’s infringement of Apple’s utility and design patents and the irreparable harm to Apple (e.g., loss of market share and downstream sales). Apple argues in its brief to the Federal Circuit that there was no need for it to demonstrate such a causal nexus, and that even if there is, the evidence does show a nexus between infringement and irreparable harm.
Continue Reading Apple urges Federal Circuit to eliminate or minimize “causal nexus” requirement for permanent injunctions
Apple: Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over Apple-Motorola FRAND/antitrust appeal
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
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.
Motorola disputes Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction over Apple’s FRAND-related appeal, argues for dismissal or transfer
Motorola and Apple are currently facing off over patent-related issues in several ongoing judicial proceedings, including multiple appeals before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. One of these Federal Circuit appeals was brought by Apple over Judge Crabb’s dismissal of Apple’s claims that Motorola violated the antitrust laws and breached its contracts with SSOs in conducting its SEP-related licensing and enforcement activities. But on January 25, Motorola filed a motion with the Federal Circuit to dismiss Apple’s appeal (or transfer it to the Seventh Circuit), asserting that the Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. While at first blush this seems like just a mundane dispute over civil procedure issues, a decision on this motion may have significant consequences for future FRAND-related proceedings.Continue Reading Motorola disputes Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction over Apple’s FRAND-related appeal, argues for dismissal or transfer