Non-Practicing Entities

Subscribe to Non-Practicing Entities via RSS

VermontWe’re going to take a brief time-out from SEP issues here for a short update on a case that’s being watched with interest by many in the patent world — the Vermont Attorney General’s consumer protection action brought last month against MPHJ Technology Investments, the so-called “scanner patent troll.” (For details on the complaint filed by the Vermont AG, see our previous post.)

It’s a somewhat mundane, and not surprising (but still noteworthy) development — This past Friday, MPHJ filed a notice of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, seeking to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, as opposed to the State of Vermont Superior Court (where it was filed by the attorney general).  Apparently, MPHJ likes its chances much better in federal court than in state court.Continue Reading MPHJ Technology Investments seeks removal of Vermont consumer protection action to federal court

CAFCLater this month, Adminstrative Law Judge David P. Shaw is expected to issue an Initial Determination in In the Matter of Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-800), which is the ITC’s Section 337 investigation into InterDigital’s allegations of 3G-essential patent infringement by Huawei, LG Electronics, Nokia, and ZTE.  The upcoming ID, though, will only relate to infringement accusations against Huawei, Nokia, and ZTE — as LG had previously been terminated from the case in July 2012.  LG had been dismissed from the ITC case because LG claimed that InterDigital’s infringement allegations were an “arbitrable dispute” covered by a license agreement between the parties, and that an arbitrator — not the ITC — should decide the infringement issues.  Once the ITC terminated LG from the case, InterDigital appealed this ruling to the Federal Circuit.

Today, in a 2-1 opinion [LINK] written by Judge Sharon Prost (joined by Judge William Bryson, with Judge Alan Lourie dissenting), the Federal Circuit reversed the ITC’s decision and remanded the case to the ITC for further proceedings.  The court held that the ITC erred in terminating LG from the investigation, because the ITC failed to analyze the text of the license agreement to determine whether LG’s arguments regarding the arbitrability of the infringement dispute were “wholly groundless.”  Furthermore, the court found that when the text of the agreement was actually considered, LG’s assertions were indeed “wholly groundless,” and the infringement claims were not subject to arbitration.


Continue Reading Federal Circuit reverses ITC decision to terminate LG Electronics from InterDigital 3G patent case (337-TA-800)

On June 4, a patent holding company named PatentMarks Communications LLC filed patent infringement lawsuits in the District of Delaware against a slew of electronics companies.  The companies accused of infringement include at least Dell, Futurewei, HTC, Kyocera, LG, Motorola Mobility, Sony Ericsson, Samsung, and ZTE.  (The complaint against HTC [LINK here] is…

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…

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…

As many of you are aware, a non-practicing entity named Innovatio IP Ventures has been engaged in a widespread licensing and litigation campaign over WiFi-related patents that were formerly owned by Broadcom.  As a result, Innovatio has become embroiled in litigation with several suppliers of WiFi-compliant devices (Cisco, Motorola Solutions, Netgear) in the Northern District of Illinois.  A few weeks ago, we noted that a debate had arisen in that case over the “essentiality” of certain asserted patents.  The presiding judge ordered briefing on the issue, and Innovatio filed its “Essentiality Brief” a couple weeks ago — asserting that not all of its asserted claims were essential or covered by IEEE RAND obligations.  This past Friday, the WiFi Suppliers filed their response to Innovatio’s Essentiality Brief.  The WiFi Suppliers accuse Innovatio of misconstruing both the IEEE Patent Policy and the relevant RAND licensing Letters of Assurance in an attempt to avoid its RAND obligations.

[2013.05.10 Defendants’ Brief re Essentiality of Patent Claims]

We alluded in our last post on this matter that issues of patent “essentiality” — and therefore, the scope of corresponding RAND obligations — are likely to become a more common issue in standard-essential patent litigation.  The WiFi Suppliers’ responsive brief demonstrates why.Continue Reading Scope of IEEE RAND obligations a hotly-contested issue in Innovatio IP Ventures WiFi patent litigation

In a post yesterday, we discussed Nokia’s amicus brief submitted “in support of neither party” in the Apple-Motorola FRAND Federal Circuit appeal (Judge Posner edition).  The amicus brief recently filed by BlackBerry (formerly Research In Motion) is now public, and it is very similar to Nokia’s — at least when it comes to the issue of the availability of injunctive relief.  While not expressly supporting Motorola, BlackBerry echoes Motorola’s (as well as Nokia’s) argument that injunction relief should not be categorically precluded for FRAND-encumbered standard-essential patents.

[2013.05.07 BlackBerry Amicus Brief]

Coincidentally, BlackBerry also now finds itself on the receiving end of a new patent infringement complaint from Canadian non-practicing entity Wi-LAN, which is based on BlackBerry’s alleged infringement of a patent that Wi-LAN claims is essential to the ETSI 3GPP Long-Term Evolution (LTE) telecommunications standard.


Continue Reading BlackBerry files amicus brief supporting availability of SEP injunctions in Fed Circuit FRAND appeal (and also gets sued by Wi-LAN for LTE patent infringement)

FRAND issues are being hashed out in a lot of jurisdictions right now.  Microsoft and Motorola are warring in Washington state, Apple and Motorola are fighting at the Federal Circuit, and Apple and Samsung are awaiting the International Trade Commission’s upcoming ruling later this month.  Noted non-practicing entity InterDigital, meanwhile, has been trying…

Last week we covered the dispute between Innovatio IP Ventures and Cisco, Motorola Solutions, and NETGEAR (the “WiFi Suppliers”) over the essentiality and non-essentiality of various 802.11-related patent claims asserted by Innovatio.  The WiFi suppliers argued that all of Innovatio’s asserted patents were essential to the 802.11 family of wireless networking standards, and therefore subject to IEEE RAND obligations.  For its part, Innovatio disputed whether dozens of claims were in fact essential.

Late last week, Innovatio filed a brief supporting its arguments regarding the non-essentiality of certain asserted claims [LINK].  Innovatio argues that the WiFi Suppliers fail to apply the IEEE’s Patent Policy in making their determination of essentiality, rendering their contentions incorrect.Continue Reading Innovatio argues that WiFi Suppliers misinterpret IEEE definition of “essentiality,” scope of RAND obligations