Yesterday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va) released a second discussion draft of a patent reform bill directed to concerns about patent litigation abuse, which draft replaces his prior May 2013 discussion draft. This second discussion draft includes the requirement to plead what standard setting organization obligations apply to an asserted patent, stating:
Federal Circuit oral arguments being held today in Apple v. Motorola “Posner appeal” (No. 12-1548)
This morning, the Federal Circuit will hold arguments in appeal no. 12-1548, Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., which is the appeal of Judge Posner’s dismissal of both parties’ patent infringement claims for failure to prove entitlement to a remedy (either injunctive relief or damages). This is a case that could have vast consequences for
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
International Trade Commission to fully review decision finding no violation of Section 337 in InterDigital 3G patent case
Today, the U.S. International Trade Commission issued its delayed decision on whether it would review ALJ David P. Shaw’s Initial Determination finding no violation of Section 337 in In the Matter of Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-800. (For some background, see our previous post on the ALJ’s
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
Samsung tells ITC that in light of USTR veto, Ericsson should drop its standard-essential infringement claims (Inv. No. 337-TA-862)
A couple weeks ago, we noted that Ericsson had submitted a Notice of New Authority in its ITC case against Samsung (Inv. No. 337-TA-862) concerning the USTR’s recent disapproval of the exclusion order in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-794. In this Notice of New Authority, Ericsson requested that presiding Administrative Law Judge David P. Shaw
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.
Ericsson asks ITC Administrative Law Judge David P. Shaw for an express FRAND determination in Samsung cellular/WiFi patent dispute (Inv. No. 337-TA-862)
Ericsson is a company that holds a significant number of standard-essential patents, and often seeks to monetize and enforce them. (They were just awarded infringement damages in Texas, and they’re engaged in an SEP duel with Samsung in the ITC and in Texas). It wasn’t surprising, then, when Ericsson last week suggested a framework for
ITC releases public versions of Initial and Recommended Determinations in Realtek-LSI Section 337 case (Inv. No. 337-TA-837); SEP issues abound
Last month, the ITC issued a Notice of ALJ David P. Shaw’s Final Initial Determination on Violation in In the Matter of Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-837), the investigation into LSI/Agere’s allegations that Realtek and Funai infringed 802.11-essential and H.264-essential patents (as well as one non-SEP). The ITC found