Miscellaneous

Subscribe to Miscellaneous via RSS

ShieldThere’s been much ado in the patent community over the past week over the re-introduction of H.R. 845, the Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes Act of 2013 — more commonly known as the SHIELD Act.  This legislation, co-sponsored by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), seeks to “protect American tech companies from frivolous patent lawsuits that cost jobs and resources” by  implementing a “loser pays” fee-shifting paradigm for patent infringement cases brought by certain types of non-practicing entities.  (A prior version introduced last year, H.R. 6245, was much more limited in its implementation of fee-shifting.)

While this is a bit off-topic for our blog, we thought this proposed legislation is sufficiently important to our readers that we’d do a brief post on it — especially given the penchant by some NPEs to assert standard-essential patents.  The legislation (at least as it’s currently drafted) has raised a lot of questions and issues and has generated a lot of commentary (both pro and con) from the business and legal communities.  After the jump, we’ll run through a quick summary of the provisions of the SHIELD Act, some first impressions about questions it may raise, and provide some links to a variety of others’ views on the proposed law.Continue Reading The new (and improved?) SHIELD Act

On March 5, 2013 at 2:00pm, the Intellectual Property Owners Association is holding a webinar to discuss the potential implications that the FTC-Google consent decree may have on the world of standard-essential patents.  The webinar is taking place as part of of IPO’s weekly IP Chat Channel series.  David W. Long, a member of Dow Lohnes’s Litigation group and a co-author of The Essential Patent Blog, will be one of the webinar presenters.  Details on the webinar and information on how to register for it is after the jump.
Continue Reading Upcoming IPO webinar on standard-essential patents and FTC-Google consent decree features Dow Lohnes’s David Long

FTCYesterday we covered several public comments submitted to the FTC by various professional organizations and trade/industry associations surround the FTC-Google consent decree.  Today, we’re here to tackle the submissions from several large companies that chose to comment on the FTC order.  These companies include Apple, Ericsson, Microsoft, Qualcomm, and Research in Motion.
Continue Reading FTC-Google public comments round-up #2: Tech companies have their say

FTCWe’ve finally sifted through the many public comments submitted in response to the FTC-Google consent decree and proposed order.  As we noted Monday, over two dozen individuals, companies, and organizations representing a wide range of interests submitted comments.  Later this week, we will do a post featuring the details of some of the post submitted by interested companies, such as Apple, Ericsson, Microsoft, Qualcomm, and Research In Motion.  But today, we are going to focus on the comments that have been submitted by other types of organizations, which include a veritable alphabet soup of interest groups, professional organizations, and industry or trade associations.
Continue Reading FTC-Google public comments round-up #1: Interest groups and industry/professional organizations weigh in

This past Friday (Feb. 22) was the deadline for the public to submit comments to the Federal Trade Commission on the FTC’s consent decree that it entered into last month with Google and Motorola Mobility.  More than two dozen individuals, companies, and organizations chose to submit comments, and their submissions reflected a wide range of interests and opinions about issues relating to both standard-essential patent issues and Google’s search practices.

These comments may be accessed from the FTC’s web site.  In a future post, we will do a deep dive into some of the more interesting comments submitted.  In the meantime, after the jump is a list of the entities that submitted comments, along with links to their web sites:

CAFCThis isn’t a necessarily a standard-essential patent issue (and it’s been covered by many others such as IPLaw360 and Groklaw over the past couple days), but as something that could affect how parties enforce standard-essential patent rights in U.S. courts, we thought it’d be worth a quick post.  Earlier this week, Apple filed its opening brief in its appeal of Judge Lucy Koh’s decision to deny Apple a permanent injunction against Samsung.  In her post-trial decision applying the eBay analysis and denying an injunction, Judge Koh found that Apple failed to demonstrate a “causal nexus” between Samsung’s infringement of Apple’s utility and design patents and the irreparable harm to Apple (e.g., loss of market share and downstream sales).  Apple argues in its brief to the Federal Circuit that there was no need for it to demonstrate such a causal nexus, and that even if there is, the evidence does show a nexus between infringement and irreparable harm.
Continue Reading Apple urges Federal Circuit to eliminate or minimize “causal nexus” requirement for permanent injunctions

It’s no secret that government agencies in the United States and abroad are paying more attention to standard-essential patent issues.  More evidence of this trend came this past Friday, when Deputy Assistant Attorney General Renata B. Hesse of the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice delivered a speech at the Global Competition Review Antitrust Law Leaders Forum in Miami.  Hesse’s speech makes it clear that FRAND licensing issues are a high priority for the DOJ’s antitrust division, and that the agency remains open to exploring new ways of enforcing FRAND commitments — potentially including pursuing standard-essential patent holders for violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act (anticompetitive monopolies or attempts to monopolize).
Continue Reading Antitrust Deputy Assistant AG’s speech may foreshadow increased DOJ enforcement activities relating to standard-essential patents

In a letter sent to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office late last week,  the American Antitrust Institute expressed its approval of the USPTO’s plan to implements rules requiring patent holders to provide more transparency regarding ownership interests in patents and patent applications.  The AAI’s letter claims that, among other considerations, these transparency provisions would have positive effect on the licensing of standard-essential patents and in helping companies deal with assertions for patent assertion entities or non-practicing entities.
Continue Reading American Antitrust Institute supports USPTO’s proposal for requiring more patent ownership transparency