In the wake of the ITC’s landmark exclusion order barring imports of certain Apple 3G products, we noticed an interesting question raised by Prof. Brian J. Love of Santa Clara law school, among others:
Professor Love is referring to one of several legislative recommendations and executive actions related to the patent system and patent litigation
The ITC just issued a Notice of Final Determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-794, the investigation concerning Samsung’s complaint against Apple. (For a refresher on the case and issues, check out our previous posts). In a decision that will reverberate across the standard-essential patent world, the Commission has determined that Apple’s products at issue
For the fourth time over the course of the Samsung-Apple ITC Investigation (No. 337-TA-794), the Commission has extended the target date for its much-anticipated Final Determination. We’ll have to wait until Tuesday, June 4 for a ruling on whether Samsung can get an exclusion order as a remedy for Apple’s alleged infringement of Samsung’s standard-essential
Spring has been an interesting time in the world of standard-essential patent litigation. Last month brought us Judge Robart’s groundbreaking RAND-setting opinion in Microsoft v. Motorola; this month, it’s the ITC’s turn. Tomorrow is the (thrice-extended) target date in In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music
While there are just a few days to go before the target date for the ITC’s long-awaited Final Determination in Samsung’s Section 337 investigation against Apple, that hasn’t stopped the parties from continuing to spar. Last week, Apple filed a “Notice of New Authority and New Facts” with the ITC, directing the Commission’s attention to
Earlier this week, we discussed N.D. Cal. Judge Ronald Whyte’s order granting partial summary judgment and issuing a preliminary injunction in a Realtek v. LSI district court case. As we explained in our post, while the district court found that LSI had breached its contractual RAND obligations by filing an ITC complaint without first making
While much of the focus on standard-essential patent litigation issues has been focused on Microsoft-Motorola, Apple-Samsung, and the InterDigital cases, these are far from the only cases dealing with SEP issues. District courts and the ITC continue to develop case law on SEP and RAND-related issues.
In an order issued yesterday in Realtek Semiconductor v. LSI (No. 12-cv-03451, N.D. Cal.), Judge Ronald Whyte of the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction that purports to prevent LSI from enforcing an ITC exclusion order until LSI has complied with its IEEE-related RAND obligations. According to the order [LINK], this means that LSI must wait to enforce any exclusion order until: (1) the court has determined an appropriate RAND rate for LSI’s 802.11-essential patents, (2) LSI offers a license to Realtek at that rate; and (3) Realtek refuses to enter into a license at the judicially-determined RAND rate (which, as the court states, “Realtek indicates it will not do.).
With the ITC’s decision in the 337-TA-794 investigation (on the propriety of exclusion orders for FRAND-pledged essential patents) involving Samsung and Apple due by the end of the month, this is certainly an interesting development. But given the way the ITC operates, we’re not so sure that the court’s order is going to have the desired effect. Let’s take a look at Judge Whyte’s order, shall we?
As many commentators have noted, Judge Robart’s Microsoft-Motorola decision may provide a roadmap to courts and parties in other FRAND disputes. Not surprisingly, Apple recently brought the decision to the attention of both the Federal Circuit (in the appeal of Judge Posner’s decision to dismiss Motorola’s SEP-related claim for damages and injunctive relief) and the
This afternoon, the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet held a hearing titled “Abusive Patent Litigation: The Issues Impacting American Competitiveness and Job Creation at the International Trade Commission and Beyond.” This hearing comes on the heels of a broader hearing on abusive patent litigation held by the same committee two months ago, as well as a different hearing in July 2012 that generally addressed the ITC’s role in deciding patent disputes. Several witnesses representing a variety of diverse backgrounds and interests testified today before the subcommittee, including:
A link to the video webcast of the full hearing is available at the House Judiciary Committee’s website, along with PDFs of each witness’s prepared testimony. Our friends at Patent Progress also live-tweeted the event — take a look at their Twitter feed @PatentProgress for their blow-by-blow account.
As we anticipated, while standard-essential patents were not the focus of this particular hearing, the issue of SEPs was indeed given some attention. In his opening remarks, Congressman Melvin Watt noted concerns some have expressed about the potential for improper usage of standard-essential patents in seeking injunctive relief, and Congressman Ted Poe briefly quizzed Prof. Chien about the propriety of asserting standard-essential patents in the ITC.
Continue Reading House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on abusive patent litigation and the ITC focuses on non-practicing entities, litigation costs, and remedies
For those of you unfamiliar with the pace of litigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission, it is fast. Just several days ago, we were writing about the comments on the public interest submitted in Inv. No. 337-TA-794 by Apple and Samsung, the ITC Staff, and several other interested non-parties. Late last week, Apple, Samsung, and the ITC staff each submitted responses to these initial public interest comments.
Barring unexpected additional submissions from the parties (e.g., a notice of supplemental authority citing Judge Robart’s forthcoming ruling in the Microsoft-Motorola RAND case, which may come down any day), the briefing in this important ITC case should now be all wrapped up. Now, the waiting game begins — the Commission has until May 31 decide whether it will issue an exclusion order barring Apple products, should it find that they infringe Samsung’s (alleged) 3G UMTS-essential patent(s) (although a ruling could, of course, come before then).
A round-up of and links to the recent responsive submissions, after the jump…
Continue Reading Public interest briefing wraps up in Samsung-Apple ITC battle (337-TA-794) — parties now play the waiting game on exclusion orders and SEPs