Litigation

Subscribe to Litigation via RSS

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.


Continue Reading ITC releases public version of the Commission opinion (and dissent) in Samsung-Apple case (337-TA-794)

Later this summer, the second phase of the Microsoft v. Motorola RAND breach of contract trial will take place in Judge James L. Robart’s courtroom in Seattle, WA.  A jury will decide whether Motorola breached its SSO-related RAND licensing obligations by offering what Microsoft deems “blatantly unreasonable” licensing terms for its 802.11- and H.264-essential patents, and then following up with patent infringement suits.

In a prior summary judgment order, Judge Robart already concluded that in order to be permissible under its RAND obligations, Motorola’s license offers “must comport with the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing inherent in every contract.”  He noted that this inquiry is heavily fact-intensive, and best left to the jury to decide.  To this end, Judge Robart recently requested that both Microsoft and Motorola present background briefing on the parameters of what is required by the duty of good faith and fair dealing in contractual disputes.  This week, the parties complied with this request:

Both parties acknowledge that the issue of good faith and fair dealing is complicated — but understandably, the parties also differ quite a bit in their views on what should be considered.  After the jump, we’ll take a brief look at the filings.


Continue Reading In Microsoft-Motorola RAND dispute, “good faith and fair dealing” is in the eye of the beholder

Over the past few years, courts have begun cracking down on improper damages theories.  The Federal Circuit’s 2012 opinion in LaserDynamics v. Quanta is instructive on this point, noting that in the absence of evidence that the patented functionality is the source of the demand for the entire product, then damages must be based on…

This past Tuesday, Judge James L. Robart held a telephonic hearing in the Microsoft-Motorola RAND breach of contract dispute taking place in his W.D. Wash. court.  As we discussed last week, the hearing centered on Microsoft’s request that the court release a previously-ordered $100 million bond — a bond that it had required Microsoft to…

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.


Continue Reading Apple, Samsung take their standard-essential patent battle to the U.S. Trade Representative

Yesterday we noted that Microsoft and Motorola are arguing over a couple of issues in the lead-up to the August breach of contract jury trial taking place in Judge Robart’s court in Seattle.  The two issues are only tangentially related: Microsoft would like Judge Robart to release the $100 million bond that he previously required Microsoft to post as security for the preliminary injunction that prevented Motorola from enforcing a German standard-essential patent injunction; Motorola argues that Microsoft has failed to produce discovery that supports its claim for RAND breach-related damages that stems from measures Microsoft took to move its German distribution center, in case Motorola did obtain and enforce an injunction.

Judge Robart set an expedited “letter-briefing” schedule on these issues and will hold a telephonic oral argument next week.  After the jump, we’ll take a quick look at the parties’ briefs and arguments.


Continue Reading Microsoft-Motorola update part two: “Bond. $100M Bond.”

It’s been relatively quiet in the Western District of Washington over the past couple weeks, as Motorola and Microsoft move forward toward an August jury trial on Microsoft’s RAND-based breach of contract claims.  But according to a minute order filed by the court this past Tuesday, this week the parties raised two separate disputes for…

Back in 2011, Intellectual Ventures fired off a patent infringement complaint against Motorola Mobility in the District of Delaware.  That case is scheduled to go to trial early in 2014  But today, Intellectual Ventures upped the ante, announcing that it has filed a second patent infringement complaint against Google subsidiary Motorola Mobility, choosing this time…

Over the past couple weeks, a jury trial was held in Tyler, Texas on Ericsson’s November 2010 complaint that wireless equipment makers D-Link Corp., Belkin International, Netgear, Acer, Gateway, Dell, and Toshiba infringe several Ericsson patents related to the IEEE 802.11 wireless networking standard and 802.11-compliant equipment (case no. 6:10-cv-00473).  Yesterday, the jury returned its…

Earlier this week, we provided an update on the multitude of WiFi-related infringement lawsuits brought by non-practicing entity Innovative Wireless Solutions LLC against various hotels and restaurants in Texas, noting that IWS had dismissed these suits (albeit without prejudice).  We had discussed that this was a decidedly “un-Innovatio-like” turn in the cases — but yesterday brought a development that makes this series of disputes much more like the ones in the Northern District of Illinois involving Innovatio:  Cisco Systems Inc., a supplier of WiFi equipment for many of the hotels accused of infringement, got involved.  And Just like it did with Innovatio, Cisco here filed a declaratory judgment action against IWS, seeking declarations of invalidity and non-infringement as to IWS’s three asserted patents.

[UPDATE] In addition to Cisco, Hewlett-Packard has also filed a declaratory judgment action against IWS.  The link is below, and more details on that complaint are at the bottom of this post — including information about a potential license defense. [/UPDATE]

[SECOND UPDATE] On Friday, June 14, Ruckus Wireless, another WiFi equipment supplier, also filed a declaratory judgment complaint against IWS.  This complaint is very similar to the one filed by Cisco. [/SECOND UPDATE]

[Cisco Systems Inc v Innovative Wireless Solutions LLC Complaint]

[Hewlett-Packard-Company v. Innovative-Wireless-Solutions-LLC Complaint]

[Ruckus Wireless v. Innovative Wireless Solutions Complaint]

Cisco’s complaint, filed in the Western District of Texas (where Rackspace has chosen to take on noted NPE Parallel Iron in another DJ action), includes some particularly harsh words for IWS —
Continue Reading WiFi equipment suppliers Cisco and HP step in and file declaratory judgment actions against Innovative Wireless Solutions LLC