District Courts

Subscribe to District Courts via RSS

A couple of weeks ago, we noted a peculiar minute order emanating from Judge James L. Robart’s courtroom in the Microsoft-Motorola RAND case.  Based on his review of Google’s AVC/H.264 standard-essential patent pool license agreement with MPEG LA, Judge Robart asked the parties to submit short letter briefs addressing two questions regarding the relevance of the Enterprise License provision (Section 3.1.7) to any grantback license that Motorola (as a subsidiary of Google) might owe to Microsoft.

Late Friday, the parties submitted their respective answers to the court’s questions (Microsoft’s / Motorola’s).  The parties’ answers and arguments show just how millions of dollars in royalties could turn on the interpretation of just a couple of short phrases in the MPEG LA agreement.  After the jump, we’ll provide a short summary of both Microsoft’s and Motorola’s positions.  Essentially, though, the parties’ arguments boil down to this — Was the MPEG LA agreement’s grantback provision designed to extend to all affiliates of a given licensee, whether those affiliates receive any benefits under the agreement or not?Continue Reading Microsoft, Motorola submit final arguments to Washington court on the relevance and effects of Google-MPEG LA AVC/H.264 agreement to a Microsoft-Motorola RAND license

Earlier this week we noted that Huawei and ZTE have asked the ITC to stay its investigation into InterDigital’s complaint of 3G/4G standard-essential patent infringement.  This was done in part because Huawei and ZTE have requested that the District Court of Delaware to expedite a determination of a FRAND rate for InterDigital’s patents.  Yesterday, InterDigital filed virtually identical opposition briefs in both cases (Opp. to Huawei / Opp. to ZTE), in which it urged the court to deny the motions — arguing that it is improper for Huawei and ZTE “to seek a purely hypothetical and advisory opinion in the form of an expedited ‘FRAND rate’ determination” while still maintaining an ability to refuse to pay in the event the patents are later found invalid or non-essential/not infringed.  This is an interesting issue surrounding FRAND licensing that has been the topic of much debate lately.
Continue Reading InterDigital calls Huawei/ZTE’s requests for expedited FRAND determinations “impractical” and “improper”

Even though the trial in the Microsoft-Motorola RAND dispute took place over three months ago, there’s been a lot going on in Washington lately.  In addition to the arguments regarding the relevance of the Google-MPEG LA AVC/H.264 patent license agreement, recall that a couple weeks ago, Judge James L. Robart granted Motorola’s request to submit additional information that may be relevant to determining the RAND rate.  Late Friday, both Motorola and Microsoft filed these documents with the court — documents that may actually raise more issues than they help resolve (and may ultimately have no bearing on Judge Robart’s decision).
Continue Reading Microsoft-Motorola RAND case update: Microsoft accuses Motorola of violating the Google/FTC consent decree, and a potential H.264 license agreement in Germany

Last week, Judge James L. Robart briefly reopened the trial record in the Microsoft-Motorola RAND breach of contract case, in order to allow the parties to submit additional evidence regarding the RAND rate for Motorola’s patents.  Yesterday, Judge Robart issued another short minute order, this time allowing additional briefing on a different issue.  Yesterday’s order concerns the terms of Google’s license with the MPEG LA AVC/H.264 patent pool, which Microsoft claims are dispositive of the appropriate RAND rate for Motorola’s H.264 patents.  (For more background on this particular issue, see our earlier post on the parties’  briefing leading up to oral arguments.).  Judge Robart has now allowed the parties to submit letter briefs of up to six pages by March 1 in light of certain “novel arguments” regarding the MPEG LA agreement that were apparently raised by the parties at the January 28 oral argument.
Continue Reading Microsoft-Motorola judge orders additional briefing on how Google-MPEG LA license agreement may affect RAND terms for Motorola’s H.264 patents

In early January, InterDigital filed a Section 337 complaint in the U.S. International Trade Commission against Huawei, Nokia, Samsung, and ZTE, accusing those companies’ 3G/4G-compliant smartphones and tablets of infringing several InterDigital patents (this is now ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-868).  Because the ITC cannot award monetary relief, it’s common for complainants to also file corresponding infringement actions in district court, which InterDigital did here in the District of Delaware.  In order to relieve ITC respondents from the burden of litigating in multiple venues simultaneously, 28 U.S.C. § 1659 allows respondents to seek a mandatory stay of the district court action pending the outcome of the ITC case.  Generally, respondents seek such a stay.  But here, neither Huawei nor ZTE have sought a stay — in fact, they have asked the Delaware district court to expedite discovery on FRAND issues.  It’s an interesting strategic move in which they leverage recent guidance from government agencies and other pending litigation, and it’s a strategy that (if successful) may be followed by many more ITC respondents in the future.
Continue Reading Huawei, ZTE seek expedited FRAND determinations in InterDigital 3G/4G standard-essential patent dispute

e.d. tex caseIt’s well-known that concerns about patent assertions by non-practicing entities were part of the impetus for the America Invents Act of 2011.  In order to prevent multiple unrelated defendants from being added to the same infringement suit on the sole basis that they are accused of infringing the same patent, the AIA added the so-called “misjoinder” provision (35 U.S.C. § 299) to the patent laws.  Briefly, Section 299 provides that defendants are properly joined if (1) infringement is asserted against the defendants based on the same transaction or occurrence or as to the same accused product or process, and (2) questions of fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.  Over the past year and a half, courts have been grappling with evaluating whether otherwise unrelated defendants are properly joined in infringement actions.  In his recent ruling in an Eastern District of Texas case involving IEEE 802.3 Ethernet technology, Magistrate John D. Love held that standards-compliant system-on-a-chip (SoC) suppliers may be properly joined with their customers under Section 299.
Continue Reading E.D. Texas court ruling shows “system-on-a-chip”-based infringement accusations can satisfy AIA’s joinder rules (U.S. Ethernet v. Samsung)

usbIt’s no surprise that most of the attention being paid to standard-essential patent issues is focused on the companies involved in the “smartphone wars” — Motorola, Microsoft, Apple. Samsung, etc.  But while these consumer product companies are of course affected by issues involving standard-essential patents, so too are their component suppliers.  A lawsuit filed this past fall in the Southern District of New York by Lotes Co. against Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. and Foxconn over SEP issues relating to the Universal Serial Bus (USB) 3.0 standard is a great example of this.  Here, we attempt to provide a brief overview of the issues in the Lotes-Hon Hai case.
Continue Reading Catching up on…Lotes v. Foxconn RAND/antitrust dispute over USB 3.0 standard-essential patents

cableOn Friday, February 8, noted and sometimes infamous patent aggregator Intellectual Ventures filed three large patent infringement complaints in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.  In the complaints, Intellectual Ventures accuses several providers of Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) services of infringing 19 patents that, according to IV, “cover fundamental and important aspects of DSL technology and services.”  The DSL providers targeted by IV in these suits include AT&T,  SBC, CenturyLink, Embarq, Qwest, Savvis, Windsteam, and PAETEC.
Continue Reading Intellectual Ventures targets DSL providers in massive new patent infringement complaints

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

gavelIn an order issued yesterday by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (that just hit the docket this afternoon), Judge James L. Robart granted Microsoft’s long-pending motion for partial summary judgment and invalidated thirteen claims of three patents Motorola alleged as essential to the AVC/H.264 video coding standard.  Although this ruling stems from the infringement portion of the case, and the major issues between the parties involve the RAND breach of contract claims brought by Microsoft over Motorola’s entire 802.11 and H.264-essential patent portfolios, it’s possible that Judge Robart’s ruling could have some future effect on these RAND claims as well.
Continue Reading Microsoft-Motorola (W.D. Wash.) update: Court invalidates several claims of Motorola H.264-essential patents