Today, an E.D. Tex. jury in Wi-LAN v. Apple returned a verdict that the asserted claims 1 and 10 of Wi-LAN’s RE37,802 Patent (“the ‘802 Patent”) were invalid and not infringed by Apple. The ‘802 Patent has been a centerpiece for Wi-LAN’s prolific patent litigations and settlements thereof. Wi-LAN has asserted that the ‘802 Patent
Reminder/Correction: Complimentary Webinar Thu. Noon on Lessons Learned From Litigated Royalty Rates on Standard Essential Patents
Reminder (and correcting some email notices) that the Essential Patent Blog and Kelley Drye & Warren LLP will host a complimentary webinar on Thursday, Oct. 17 at 12pm Eastern to discuss the import of Judge Holderman’s Oct. 3 RAND opinion in the Innovatio IP Ventures Patent Litigation and comparison with Judge Robart’s RAND methodology from
Court Precludes Defendants From Raising FRAND Obligation After Dropping That Affirmative Defense
The Court presiding over Wi-LAN’s patent infringement litigation against HTC and Exedea recently entered an order memorializing the court’s oral rulings on various pre-trial motions and disputes during a September 26, 2013 pre-trial hearing, including whether Wi-LAN’s alleged failure to offer a license on FRAND terms remained an issue in the case after defendants voluntarily
Complimentary Webinar: Lessons Learned From Litigated Royalty Rates on Standard Essential Patents
Please join the Essential Patent Blog and Kelley Drye & Warren LLP for a complimentary webinar on Thursday, Oct. 17 at 12:00pm Eastern to discuss the import of Judge Holderman’s recent RAND decision in the In re Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC Patent Litigation. Judge Holderman’s October 3rd decision is only the second U.S. district
PUBLIC version of Judge Holderman’s RAND determination in Innovatio WiFi SEP litigation
Today the court posted the public version of Judge Holderman’s 89-page ruling on what constitutes RAND for Innovatio’s WiFi patents — posted much sooner than anticipated in our earlier post. The court applied a modified version of Judge Robart’s methodology to determine the RAND rate to be paid by manufacturers of WiFi equipment for
Judge Robart rules sufficient evidence supports jury verdict that Motorola breached RAND obligation in dealings with Microsoft
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
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
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
FRAND licensing, chip suppliers, and the interplay of patent exhaustion / defensive suspension clauses
When Judge Robart issued his summary judgment order last week in the Microsoft-Motorola case, we noted that he ordered the parties to submit further briefing on Microsoft’s allegation that Motorola breached its RAND obligations to Microsoft (at least in part) by failing to offer a RAND license to Microsoft’s WiFi chip supplier, Marvell Semiconductor:
As the court understands it, Microsoft will argue to the jury that Motorola failed to grant a license to Marvell, and if Motorola had granted such a license, Motorola would then be precluded from seeking a license from Microsoft for the SEPs at issue. This argument requires a legal basis. The argument is premised on the notion that, legally, Motorola’s ability to seek a license from Microsoft would be exhausted by granting a license to Marvell. This issue is not explored in the parties’ summary judgment briefing. Thus, the parties may provide three-page letter briefs no later than August 16, 2013, on the legal grounds for Microsoft’s assertion that a Motorola-Marvell license would preclude Motorola from seeking a license from Microsoft. Additionally, no later than August 16, 2013, the parties may propose jury instructions on this issue.
On Friday, the parties submitted letter briefs in response to this order (links below). As we alluded to in last week’s post, this issue raises some interesting questions on what types of behavior and licensing restrictions are proper during FRAND licensing negotiations — questions that we’ll get into after the jump.