Last week, Apple filed its brief as an intervenor in the Federal Circuit appeal involving Samsung’s stymied ITC case against Apple (Inv. No. 337-TA-794). Arguing the ITC’s finding of no violation should be affirmed with respect to the one patent-at-issue, Apple’s brief raised a number of SEP issues involving Samsung’s involvement with the IETF and
Samsung tells ITC that in light of USTR veto, Ericsson should drop its standard-essential infringement claims (Inv. No. 337-TA-862)
A couple weeks ago, we noted that Ericsson had submitted a Notice of New Authority in its ITC case against Samsung (Inv. No. 337-TA-862) concerning the USTR’s recent disapproval of the exclusion order in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-794. In this Notice of New Authority, Ericsson requested that presiding Administrative Law Judge David P. Shaw
RANDomness
- InsideCounsel magazine recently published an article of ours, titled “Establishing Federal Rules of Patent Procedure“. This article is the first in a three-part series in which we examine certain “patent reforms” that have been proposed in response to the perceived rise in assertions by non-innovative patent assertion entities. In this article, we look
What does the U.S. Trade Representative’s disapproval of the Samsung-Apple exclusion order mean for SEP cases at the ITC?
Yesterday, we covered some of the wide-ranging reaction to U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman’s decision to veto the ITC’s exclusion order in Inv. No. 337-TA-794. One recurring theme was the question of what this ruling might mean for other SEP-related Section 337 cases that are currently at the ITC (or may be brought in the
A round-up of reactions to the USTR’s veto of the ITC’s exclusion order in Inv. No. 337-TA-794
Even though it was released on a Saturday, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman’s disapproval of the exclusion and cease & desist orders in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-794 has understandably generated a lot of chatter in industry and the patent world. Many are hailing the decision, while others disagree with the veto and/or believe it should
U.S. Trade Representative vetoes exclusion order in Samsung-Apple ITC case (Inv. No. 337-TA-794); no iPhone/iPad ban
Today, U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Michael Froman issued his long-anticipated decision regarding the U.S. International Trade Commission’s exclusion order in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-794 involving Samsung and Apple. And as you may have heard by now, the verdict is…
The exclusion order has been “disapproved of” — i.e., overturned, vetoed, not going to go into
ITC releases public version of the Commission opinion (and dissent) in Samsung-Apple case (337-TA-794)
Late last week, the ITC finally released the public version of its Final Determination and Commission Opinion in In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers (Inv. No. 337-TA-794) — the case where the Commission last month issued a controversial exclusion order based on Apple’s infringement of a Samsung 3G-essential patent. The document, linked to below, includes both the Commission’s determination of a violation of Section 337 and its decision to issue an exclusion order despite the fact that Samsung had previously pledged to license the patent at issue on FRAND terms, along with a dissent by Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert from the decision to issue an exclusion order.
[337-TA-794 Commission Opinion (Public Version)]
As you can see, the Commission’s opinion is long and detailed, and we are in the midst of preparing an annotated version of the opinion that we’ll be posting later this week (similar to what we did with the Microsoft-Motorola RAND opinion). But after the jump, we’ll give you a quick overview of the Commission’s determination and the dissent’s views on the FRAND and SEP-related public interest issues.
Apple, Samsung take their standard-essential patent battle to the U.S. Trade Representative
Earlier this month, the ITC issued a landmark decision and exclusion order, ruling that certain Apple products should be excluded from entry into the United States because they infringe a Samsung 3G-essential patent. As we explained in a follow-up post, the ITC doesn’t have the final word, though — by law, the President has the power to disapprove of an exclusion order for public policy reasons. (This power has since been delegated to the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).) In a high-stakes, high-profile case such as Samsung-Apple, you’d expect the parties to continue the fight at every level — and sure enough, that’s what has happened.
As noted by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents, last week both Apple and Samsung submitted arguments to the USTR. Mr. Mueller got his hands on public, redacted versions of the documents, which we’ve linked to below:
After the jump, we’ll take a more in-depth look at each party’s arguments.
Newly-public letter to ITC shows lawmakers’ concern over standard-essential patent issues
By now, it’s really no surprise to those who pay attention to SEP issues that certain lawmakers have their eyes on the standard-essential patent world, as well. Although non-practicing entity issues generally grab headlines these days, Congress does make some time for SEPs, too. One example of this just became public — a May 21
A look at the ITC’s exclusion and cease & desist orders in the Samsung-Apple case (337-TA-794)
One thing that has frustrated many followers of the Samsung-Apple ITC case is the currently unavailability of a public version of the Commission’s Final Determination. Generally, the only insight into the ITC’s reasoning came from the limited information in the Commission’s Notice of Final Determination. But for those of you who are interested, we thought it’d be worth taking a look at the publicly-available documents that spell out the specific exclusionary relief awarded to Samsung in this case:
After the jump, we’ll dive into these in a little more detail.
Continue Reading A look at the ITC’s exclusion and cease & desist orders in the Samsung-Apple case (337-TA-794)