Non-Practicing Entities

Subscribe to Non-Practicing Entities via RSS

While InterDigital continues to press its claims of 3G- and 4G-essential patent infringement in the International Trade Commission against Huawei, Nokia, Samsung, and ZTE (Inv. No. 337-TA-868), the companies have also been fighting about FRAND-related issues in Delaware, where some of defendants have asserted FRAND-related counterclaims against InterDigital.  A few weeks back, we noted InterDigital had asked the court to dismiss Huawei and ZTE’s FRAND counterclaims, arguing that they were not ripe and were not properly pleaded, among other reasons.  Last Thursday, Huawei and ZTE filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss [LINK].
Continue Reading Huawei, ZTE tell Delaware court that their FRAND claims against InterDigital should not be dismissed

Two weeks ago we noted a slew of infringement lawsuits brought by Wyncomm LLC, a non-practicing entity, against dozens of companies over a WiFi-related patent that was formerly owned by AT&T.  Today, yet another NPE accused multiple companies of infringing WiFi-related patents that used to belong to an telecommunications company.  This time, the NPE is an entity named Innovative Wireless Solutions LLC (“IWS”), and the patents it is asserting were originally owned by Northern Telecom (later Nortel Networks).  Unlike Wyncomm, who filed in Delaware, IWS filed its suits in the Eastern District of Texas.  And instead of targeting a number of hardware manufacturers like Apple and Asus, IWS filed suit against a variety of hotel chains large and small, including Marriott, Starwood, Wyndham and Grayson Hospitality.  (Hotel chains were also a popular target for Innovatio IP Ventures, another NPE asserting WiFi-related patents).  An example of one of the complaints filed today by IWS (against Marriott) may be viewed here.

[UPDATE] Since we first posted this, many more complaints filed by Innovative Wireless Solutions have come to light.  The defendants include not just hotels, but also other businesses such as coffee and sandwich shops (again, apparently taking a page right out of Innovatio’s playbook).  The full list of defendants, which is available after the jump, has been updated to reflect these other suits. [/UPDATE]Continue Reading Innovative Wireless Solutions LLC accuses hotels (and others) of infringing WiFi/Ethernet patents formerly owned by Nortel

An issue that often comes up in standard-essential patent litigation is “essentiality” — whether the asserted claims are actually necessary to practice the technological standard that forms the basis of the infringement allegations.  This is important for at least two reasons: first, because if the claim is not actually necessary to practice the standard, an implementer could (at least theoretically) design around the patent to create a non-infringing implementation of the standard; and second, because the RAND obligations set forth in the patent policies of many SSOs are often limited only to truly “essential” patent claims.

This issue of essentiality has come to the forefront in the ongoing multidistrict litigation between non-practicing entity Innovatio and several WiFi suppliers (Cisco, Motorola Solutions, and Netgear).  You may recall that Innovatio, in winning (in part) a motion to dismiss some unfair competition and RICO claims, had argued that many of the asserted claims are not actually “Essential Patent Claims” as defined by the IEEE — and therefore cannot be subject to any existing RAND obligation.  Earlier this month, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer and submit a joint statement regarding disputes over whether, based on Innovatio’s infringement contentions, the asserted claims of Innovatio’s patents are actually essential to the IEEE 802.11 wireless networking standard.  Yesterday, the parties submitted their stipulation regarding the essentiality of Innvatio’s asserted patent claims.
Continue Reading Innovatio, WiFi suppliers clash over over “essentiality” of Innovatio 802.11 patents

Earlier this month we covered InterDigital’s efforts to dismiss Huawei and ZTE’s FRAND counterclaims, which were asserted against InterDigital in litigations in the U.S. District Court in Delaware.  Yesterday, InterDigital filed another motion to dismiss FRAND-related counterclaims in a different Delaware district court litigation — this time, InterDigital seeks to have Nokia’s FRAND counterclaims…

Back in December 2012, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice held a joint workshop to explore the impact that patent assertion entities (PAEs — or non-practicing entities/NPEs) may be having on innovation, competition, and the U.S. economy.  The FTC and DOJ invited the public to submit comments for consideration by the agencies, even extending the deadline for submission until early April.  All in all, 68 separate submissions have been received and posted on the FTC/DOJ workshop’s site.

The commenters represent a wide variety of industries and interests, and express divergent viewpoints and positions about the effects of PAE activity.  Many comments focus on the newly-reintroduced SHIELD Act.  Given that the main focus of this blog is on standard-essential patent issues, we won’t even try to give a comprehensive rundown of all of the comments — we’ll leave the focus on non-practicing entities to others.  But several of the comments do express particular concern about the interplay between PAEs, standard-setting organizations and standard-essential patents.  After the jump, we’ll discuss some of these issues that are being flagged as troublesome.


Continue Reading Public comments on FTC/DOJ Patent Assertion Entity Workshop include worries that PAEs may “game the system” of standard-setting and RAND licensing

This afternoon, the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet held a hearing titled “Abusive Patent Litigation: The Issues Impacting American Competitiveness and Job Creation at the International Trade Commission and Beyond.”  This hearing comes on the heels of a broader hearing on abusive patent litigation held by the same committee two months ago, as well as a different hearing in July 2012 that generally addressed the ITC’s role in deciding patent disputes.  Several witnesses representing a variety of diverse backgrounds and interests testified today before the subcommittee, including:

  • Kevin Rhodes, VP and Chief IP Counsel for 3M Innovative Properties Co.
  • Jon Dudas, Former Director of the USPTO (and a member of the board of non-practicing entity MOSAID Technologies)
  • Prof. Colleen Chien of Santa Clara University
  • Russell Binns, Associate General Counsel for IP Law & Litigation at Avaya
  • Deanna Tanner Okun, Former Chairwoman of the ITC (and a partner at Adduci Mastriani & Schaumberg)
  • David Foster, Chairman of the Legislative Committee for the ITC Trial Lawyers Association (and a partner at Foster, Murphy, Altman & Nickel)

A link to the video webcast of the full hearing is available at the House Judiciary Committee’s website, along with PDFs of each witness’s prepared testimony.  Our friends at Patent Progress also live-tweeted the event — take a look at their Twitter feed @PatentProgress for their blow-by-blow account.

As we anticipated, while standard-essential patents were not the focus of this particular hearing, the issue of SEPs was indeed given some attention.  In his opening remarks, Congressman Melvin Watt noted concerns some have expressed about the potential for improper usage of standard-essential patents in seeking injunctive relief, and Congressman Ted Poe briefly quizzed Prof. Chien about the propriety of asserting standard-essential patents in the ITC. 
Continue Reading House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on abusive patent litigation and the ITC focuses on non-practicing entities, litigation costs, and remedies

Just like with cellular standards, the widespread use of the IEEE 802.11 wireless networking (“WiFi”) standard often makes WiFi-compliant devices easy targets for patent infringement lawsuits — particularly suits brought by non-practicing entities.  The most infamous of these NPEs targeting WiFi is probably Innovatio IP Ventures LLC, who has accused thousands of businesses of…

Recently Apple explained to the ITC that many of the standard-essential patents asserted by Samsung against Apple have failed under the scrutiny of litigation, resulting in a finding of non-infringement or invalidity.  Well, Apple can now chalk up another SEP win on the board, although one that has nothing to do with Samsung.  Yesterday, Judge Sue Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware ruled on summary judgment that Apple does not infringe two patents alleged by Golden Bridge Technology to be essential to the 3G W-CDMA wireless telecommunications standard.

Golden Bridge is a noted non-practicing entity whose “primary business is the creation, licensing, and enforcement of Wideband CDMA technology and intellectual property.”  The company is involved in several lawsuits over its allegedly-essential cellular technology, and even brought (and lost) an antitrust case against several mobile device makers a few years back, where it had accused the mobile device companies of excluding Golden Bridge’s technology from the standard-setting process.
Continue Reading Delaware court says Apple does not infringe Golden Bridge W-CDMA patents

The standard-essential patent battle between InterDigital and Chinese handset makers Huawei and ZTE rages on in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.  Recall that the parties are awaiting an Initial Determination in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-800, and are also involved in Inv. No. 337-TA-868.  In the companion district court cases to the -868 investigation, Huawei and ZTE attempted to have the Delaware court expedite a determination of FRAND terms for InterDigital’s portfolio, an attempt that was rebuffed by the court.  But now, in motion filed yesterday, InterDigital seeks to have Huawei and ZTE’s FRAND-related claims dismissed altogether.  InterDigital argues that the FRAND counterclaims should have been asserted in an earlier litigation, are not ripe, and merely seek an advisory opinion.  InterDigital also claims that Huawei and ZTE have failed to allege the existence of an enforceable contractual commitment under the applicable law.
Continue Reading InterDigital asks Delaware court to dismiss Huawei, ZTE’s FRAND counterclaims

Chrimar Systems (also known as CMS Technologies) is a non-practicing entity that owns patents that it claims are essential to IEEE Power-over-Ethernet technology — amendments 802.3af and 802.3at to the IEEE 802.3 Ethernet standard.  Chrimar has litigated several cases throughout the years based on these patents, including a (now-terminated) ITC case (Inv. No. 337-TA-817).  Chrimar’s website lists several licensees for its Power-over-Ethernet patents, as well.

But now it looks like Chrimar’s standard-essential portfolio just got a little bit smaller.  Yesterday, in Chrimar Systems v. Foundry Networks (now Brocade Communications Systems), the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that had invalidated claims 14 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 5,406,260.  
Continue Reading Chrimar Systems’ Power-over-Ethernet claims found invalid on appeal