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
Intellectual Ventures files suit, accuses bank of infringing data security standard-essential patents
Well-known non-practicing entity Intellectual Ventures has been fairly quiet on the litigation front, particularly as compared to other high-profile NPEs. And when IV has filed suits, it has generally targeted technology companies, such as semiconductor manufacturers, handset makers, or telecom service providers. But earlier this week, IV branched out into new territory, suing the
U.S. International Trade Commission expected to rule tomorrow on availability of exclusion orders for infringement of FRAND standard-essential patents (337-TA-794)
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
Samsung accuses Apple of violating ITC rules and misrepresenting “key facts” (Inv. No. 337-TA-794)
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
Motorola tells Fed Circuit that Microsoft-Motorola RAND opinion supports its appeal of Judge Posner decision (Apple v. Motorola)
A couple weeks ago, Apple directed the Federal Circuit’s attention to the Microsoft-Motorola RAND-setting opinion. Apple claimed that in a variety of ways, Judge Robart’s decision supported Apple’s arguments on appeal. This past Friday, Motorola filed a brief response to Apple’s citation of supplemental authority — and in it, Motorola claims that the reasoning of
Patent pool One-Blue and several licensors file suit against Imation over Blu-ray patents
This past Wednesday, the Blu-ray patent pool One-Blue, LLC and several of its licensors (Philips, Panasonic, Pioneer, and Sony) filed a patent infringement lawsuit in Delaware district court, accusing Imation Corp. of infringing several patents that are either essential or related to the Blu-ray Disc Assocation’s (BDA) Blu-ray standards.
[One-Blue v Imation Complaint]Continue Reading Patent pool One-Blue and several licensors file suit against Imation over Blu-ray patents
Realtek draws ITC’s attention to recent N.D. Cal. order & preliminary injunction (Inv. No. 337-TA-837) — and Apple does too
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
Vermont Attorney General files suit against notorious scanner non-practicing entity
We’re going to take a quick time-out from standard-essential patent issues for a minute for a brief post on non-practicing entities. These NPEs are getting more and more attention from industry, regulators, and Congress, with a multitude of recent legislation (e.g., the SHIELD Act, the Patent Quality Improvement Act and the End Anonymous Patents
Recent Supreme Court grant of petition for certiorari may have implications for standard-essential patent disputes (Medtronic v. Boston Scientific)
Back in September 2012, we posted a Patent Alert on the Federal Circuit’s decision in Medtronic v. Boston Scientific. In that case, the court held that in an action where a licensee in good standing seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement (so any counterclaim for infringement would be foreclosed by the existence of the
District court judge issues order enjoining enforcement of ITC exclusion order pending judicial RAND determination — but does it matter? (Realtek v. LSI/Agere)
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?