3G

Subscribe to 3G via RSS

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.


Continue Reading Apple, Samsung take their standard-essential patent battle to the U.S. Trade Representative

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…

In the wake of the ITC’s landmark exclusion order barring imports of certain Apple 3G products, we noticed an interesting question raised by Prof. Brian J. Love of Santa Clara law school, among others:

BrianJLove

Professor Love is referring to one of several legislative recommendations and executive actions related to the patent system and patent litigation…

The ITC just issued a Notice of Final Determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-794, the investigation concerning Samsung’s complaint against Apple.  (For a refresher on the case and issues, check out our previous posts).  In a decision that will reverberate across the standard-essential patent world, the Commission has determined that Apple’s products at issue…

For the fourth time over the course of the Samsung-Apple ITC Investigation (No. 337-TA-794), the Commission has extended the target date for its much-anticipated Final Determination.  We’ll have to wait until Tuesday, June 4 for a ruling on whether Samsung can get an exclusion order as a remedy for Apple’s alleged infringement of Samsung’s standard-essential…

Spring has been an interesting time in the world of standard-essential patent litigation.  Last month brought us Judge Robart’s groundbreaking RAND-setting opinion in Microsoft v. Motorola; this month, it’s the ITC’s turn.  Tomorrow is the (thrice-extended) target date in   In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music…

Earlier this week, we noted that Apple directed the Federal Circuit’s attention to Judge Robart’s Microsoft-Motorola decision in Apple-Motorola “Posner Appeal.”  (For a recap of the parties’ FRAND-related appellate briefing in the case thus far, see our prior posts on Motorola’s opening brief and Apple’s responsive brief).  Yesterday, Motorola’s reply brief became publicly available.

[2013.05.13 Motorola Reply Brief (12-1548)]

In its brief — summarized after the jump — Motorola reiterates its prior arguments to the Federal Circuit that Judge Posner erred in concluding that Motorola could not prove entitlement to either monetary or injunctive relief as compensation for Apple’s alleged infringement.  But Motorola does not just repeat the same arguments it made in its opening brief — it also attempts to address arguments raised by Apple concerning patent hold-up and the effect of the January 2013 FTC-Google consent decree.


Continue Reading Motorola tells Federal Circuit that its prior SEP licenses were not the result of hold-up, and that injunctions must be available against “intransigent infringers” of FRAND patents

Many district courts around the country have specialized local rules that govern patent litigation, in order to assist the court and the parties to manage the myriad issues that come up in the vast majority of complex patent cases.  Local patent rules often control the schedule and format for the parties’ infringement and invalidity contentions, claim construction proceedings, etc.  The Northern District of California, where France Telecom and Marvell are embroiled in a patent suit over Marvell’s alleged infringement of a digital coding patent, is one such district that uses local patent rules.  In a ruling handed down this past Friday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathaniel Cousins found that it was proper for France Telecom to rely on two ETSI 3G cellular standards in formulating its infringement contentions.  This ruling shows that — with some caveats — it is permissible to use an industry standard as a basis for infringement contentions in districts with local patent rules.

[2013.05.013 (D.E. 79) Granting Motion to Compel in Part]Continue Reading Infringement contentions based on industry standards sufficient to comply with N.D. Cal. local patent rules (France Telecom v. Marvell)

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