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).


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

We previously discussed the opening comments filed by Complainant LSI in the International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation of whether Realtek and Funai infringe LSI’s alleged 802.11 and H.264 standard essential patents (SEPs). To recap, the ALJ’s initial determination found the SEP patents were not infringed but rejected RAND-based defenses. The Commission decided to review the

Recall that Rockstar started asserting patents it acquired from Nortel by filing a lawsuit in E.D. Tex. on Halloween against Google and certain Android handset manufacturers (see our Nov. post that also summarizes Rockstar’s acquisition of Nortel’s patents).  On Christmas Eve, Google responded by filing a Complaint in N.D. Cal. seeking a declaratory judgment

Last week, on Dec. 20, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) filed an amicus brief (not supporting any side) in the appeals to the Federal Circuit from the jury award and RAND rulings by Judge Leonard Davis in E.D. Tex. concerning three of Ericsson’s 802.11 Wi-Fi patents.  Our August post discussed the

Last week Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Gildea granted Adaptix’s motion to withdraw its Complaint and investigation of Ericsson’s alleged infringement of patents alleged to cover LTE standards used by Ericsson’s base stations (see our prior posts discussing Adaptix’s motion and Ericsson’s response).

ALJ Gildea’s ruling was short and succinct, noting–but not opining on–Ericsson’s assertion

We recently posted about defendant ViewSonic’s Answer in Zenith Elec. v. Viewsonic, which Answer included FRAND-related affirmative defenses and counterclaims against plaintiffs Zenith, Panasonic and Philips, as well as a FRAND-related Third-Party claim against MPEG LA.  On Monday, December 2, Curtis filed a motion to bifurcate the trial in the related case brought by Zenith

Today Ericsson filed its response to Adaptix’s sudden motion to withdraw its Complaint and terminate the ITC’s investigation of whether Ericsson’s base stations infringe an Adaptix patent alleged to cover cellular LTE standards.  Recall from our post last week that it was not clear why Adaptix made this extraordinary step on the eve of trial.

Motorola has filed its opposition to Microsoft’s motion to transfer the appeal of Judge Robart’s RAND ruling from the Federal Circuit to the Ninth Circuit (see our prior blog on Microsoft’s motion).  Recall that Microsoft argued that the appealed action was a contract action, its nature did not change when that action was consolidated