You will soon see a fresh new look and feel to the Essential Patent Blog and some enhanced content.  For example, we will start adding specific pages for significant SEP patent litigations that we have been following to provide an easier way for you to get a summary of the litigation, including past key events,

Yesterday Arris filed a declaratory judgment action in D. Del. against Rockstar based on Rockstar asserting alleged standard essential patents (SEPs) against cable operators who purchased Arris equipment (recall our Jan. 21, 2014 post about Rockstar lawsuits with cable operators).  Among other things, Arris seeks a declaration of the essentiality of Rockstar patents, what standard

If you are in Phoenix today for the AIPLA Mid-Winter Institute, please stop by the AIPLA’s Standards & Open Source Committee booth from 3:30pm to 4:30pm (Komatke Ballroom).  You can have invigorating conversations about FRAND, holdup versus holdout, whether it should be “SSO” or “SDO” and other plainly exciting issues notwithstanding whatever your family,

In an order dated January 16, 2014, the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) ordered another investigation into Ericsson’s licensing of cellular patents that are subject to FRAND obligations, which investigation will parallel a similar investigation of Ericsson that CCI ordered on November 12, 2013 (discussed in our prior post).  The rationale for this

Last Friday, several cable operators filed a Complaint against Rockstar in D. Del. alleging that Rockstar’s assertion against them of patents breached obligations owed to various standard setting organizations (“SSOs”) based on prior owner Nortel’s commitment to license patents on RAND, FRAND or royalty-free terms.  Our Jan. 2 and Nov. 1 posts discussed Rockstar’s purchase

On New Year’s Eve, Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker of the W.D. Wis. ruled that a patent pool’s demand letter listing hundreds of standard-essential-patents was not enough for the patent owner to provide its recipients with actual notice of alleged acts of patent infringement under the patent statute.  Ruling on Defendants’ Motion for JMOL regarding pre-suit

Yesterday patent monetization entity MPHJ filed a Complaint in W.D. Tex. against the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for threatening an enforcement action against MPHJ premised on MPHJ’s extensive letter campaign to accumulate license fees on its scanner patents by threatening small end-users with litigation that MPHJ allegedly did not actually intend to pursue.  We

InterDigital has moved to terminate the pending ITC investigation against LG (Inv. No. 337-TA-800) given the ITC’s recent noninfringement determination against Nokia and ZTE based on the same patents (see our Dec. 23 post).  InterDigital seeks to avoid litigating the infringement case anew against LG while simultaneously appealing the ITC’s noninfringement determination with respect

Today the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Limelight v. Akamai to review the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision that induced infringement under Section 271(b) involving multiple actors — e.g., internet service provider performing some steps of a patent claim and end-customers doing final step — does not require establishing direct infringement under Section 271(a).

The

Judge Whyte recently issued his final ruling on Daubert and other evidence regarding RAND issues for the upcoming Realtek v. LSI jury trial based on his tentative ruling discussed in our Nov. 14 post.  Judge Whyte basically kept his tentative rulings and bases thereof, as discussed in our prior post.  He did provide additional