About a month ago, Administrative Law Judge David Shaw issued a Notice of Initial Determination in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-800, concluding that InterDigital failed to prove that Respondents Huawei, Nokia, and ZTE infringed any valid patent claims that InterDigital asserted as essential to 3G cellular standards (several claims of one patent were found infringed, but
Chipmakers LSI and Agere get a partial preliminary win at the ITC, but not on SEP infringement (Inv. No. 337-TA-837)
Yesterday, Administrative Law Judge David P. Shaw issued a Notice of Initial Determination in In the Matter of Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing Same (No. 337-TA-837), an ITC Section 337 investigation based on an infringement complaint brought by LSI and Agere against Funai, Realtek, and Mediatek (who had previously settled out of the case).
ITC judge rejects Ericsson’s attempt to add FRAND defenses to Adaptix Section 337 case (337-TA-871)
Back in January, we alerted you to a patent infringement case brought in the U.S. International Trade Commission by Acacia Research subsidiary Adaptix. Adaptix accused Ericsson of infringing U.S. Pat. No. 6,870,808, which Adaptix asserted to be essential to the ETSI 4G Long-Term Evolution (LTE) wireless standard. The ITC later instituted the investigation as
An annotated version of the ITC’s decision in the Samsung-Apple case (Inv. No. 337-TA-794)
Earlier this week, we took a quick look at the U.S. International Trade Commission’s landmark opinion in In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers (Inv. No. 337-TA-794) — and we promised an annotated version of the Commission’s rather lengthy opinion. Well, without
ITC releases public version of the Commission opinion (and dissent) in Samsung-Apple case (337-TA-794)
Late last week, the ITC finally released the public version of its Final Determination and Commission Opinion in In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers (Inv. No. 337-TA-794) — the case where the Commission last month issued a controversial exclusion order based on Apple’s infringement of a Samsung 3G-essential patent. The document, linked to below, includes both the Commission’s determination of a violation of Section 337 and its decision to issue an exclusion order despite the fact that Samsung had previously pledged to license the patent at issue on FRAND terms, along with a dissent by Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert from the decision to issue an exclusion order.
[337-TA-794 Commission Opinion (Public Version)]
As you can see, the Commission’s opinion is long and detailed, and we are in the midst of preparing an annotated version of the opinion that we’ll be posting later this week (similar to what we did with the Microsoft-Motorola RAND opinion). But after the jump, we’ll give you a quick overview of the Commission’s determination and the dissent’s views on the FRAND and SEP-related public interest issues.
ITC rules against InterDigital’s claims of 3G-essential patent infringement in preliminary finding
On Friday, U.S. International Trade Commission Administrative Law Judge David P. Shaw issued a Notice of Initial Determination in In the Matter of Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-800. This investigation was originally instituted nearly two years ago based on a complaint filed by InterDigital against Huawei, Nokia, ZTE, and LG, in which InterDigital accused the companies of infringing several InterDigital patents alleged to be essential to various 3G cellular communications standards. The evidentiary hearing was held in January 2013, and the case involves the intersection of a two issues that have drawn a lot of attention lately — the assertion of standard-essential patents at the ITC (and what if any relevance FRAND licensing obligations have to the proceedings), as well as patent infringement cases brought by non-practicing entities (InterDigital is an NPE that has been deemed a “patent troll” by some, while others take a more favorable view of the company’s activities).
So far, it appears that InterDigital’s SEP infringement assertions have failed (at least for now). While the public version of ALJ Shaw’s Initial Determination won’t become available for at least a few weeks, Friday’s Notice indicates that ALJ Shaw found no violations of Section 337 with respect to any of the seven remaining asserted patents.
Continue Reading ITC rules against InterDigital’s claims of 3G-essential patent infringement in preliminary finding
Apple, Samsung take their standard-essential patent battle to the U.S. Trade Representative
Earlier this month, the ITC issued a landmark decision and exclusion order, ruling that certain Apple products should be excluded from entry into the United States because they infringe a Samsung 3G-essential patent. As we explained in a follow-up post, the ITC doesn’t have the final word, though — by law, the President has the power to disapprove of an exclusion order for public policy reasons. (This power has since been delegated to the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).) In a high-stakes, high-profile case such as Samsung-Apple, you’d expect the parties to continue the fight at every level — and sure enough, that’s what has happened.
As noted by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents, last week both Apple and Samsung submitted arguments to the USTR. Mr. Mueller got his hands on public, redacted versions of the documents, which we’ve linked to below:
After the jump, we’ll take a more in-depth look at each party’s arguments.
Newly-public letter to ITC shows lawmakers’ concern over standard-essential patent issues
By now, it’s really no surprise to those who pay attention to SEP issues that certain lawmakers have their eyes on the standard-essential patent world, as well. Although non-practicing entity issues generally grab headlines these days, Congress does make some time for SEPs, too. One example of this just became public — a May 21
Federal Circuit reverses ITC decision to terminate LG Electronics from InterDigital 3G patent case (337-TA-800)
Later this month, Adminstrative Law Judge David P. Shaw is expected to issue an Initial Determination in In the Matter of Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-800), which is the ITC’s Section 337 investigation into InterDigital’s allegations of 3G-essential patent infringement by Huawei, LG Electronics, Nokia, and ZTE. The upcoming ID, though, will only relate to infringement accusations against Huawei, Nokia, and ZTE — as LG had previously been terminated from the case in July 2012. LG had been dismissed from the ITC case because LG claimed that InterDigital’s infringement allegations were an “arbitrable dispute” covered by a license agreement between the parties, and that an arbitrator — not the ITC — should decide the infringement issues. Once the ITC terminated LG from the case, InterDigital appealed this ruling to the Federal Circuit.
Today, in a 2-1 opinion [LINK] written by Judge Sharon Prost (joined by Judge William Bryson, with Judge Alan Lourie dissenting), the Federal Circuit reversed the ITC’s decision and remanded the case to the ITC for further proceedings. The court held that the ITC erred in terminating LG from the investigation, because the ITC failed to analyze the text of the license agreement to determine whether LG’s arguments regarding the arbitrability of the infringement dispute were “wholly groundless.” Furthermore, the court found that when the text of the agreement was actually considered, LG’s assertions were indeed “wholly groundless,” and the infringement claims were not subject to arbitration.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit reverses ITC decision to terminate LG Electronics from InterDigital 3G patent case (337-TA-800)
A look at the ITC’s exclusion and cease & desist orders in the Samsung-Apple case (337-TA-794)
One thing that has frustrated many followers of the Samsung-Apple ITC case is the currently unavailability of a public version of the Commission’s Final Determination. Generally, the only insight into the ITC’s reasoning came from the limited information in the Commission’s Notice of Final Determination. But for those of you who are interested, we thought it’d be worth taking a look at the publicly-available documents that spell out the specific exclusionary relief awarded to Samsung in this case:
After the jump, we’ll dive into these in a little more detail.
Continue Reading A look at the ITC’s exclusion and cease & desist orders in the Samsung-Apple case (337-TA-794)