Yesterday a jury returned a verdict finding that Apple does not infringe Golden Bridge’s patent alleged to be essential to the WCDMA standard.  The verdict thus did not reach the royalty-rate issue that was interesting for a few reasons.

Excluded FRAND Expert Testimony.  As discussed in our May 30, 2014 post, Magistrate Judge

Magistrate Judge Grewal in N.D. Cal. recently issued an Order excluding the testimony of Golden Bridge Technology’s damages expert because it was based on a flawed methodology for determing a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) royalty rate for the asserted patent alleged to be essential to the 3GPP WCDMA standard.  The primary problem appears to

Last week, Magistrate Judge Grewal in N.D. Cal. denied Apple’s motion for summary judgment that patent owner Golden Bridge Technology was precluded from seeking pre-suit damages due to its alleged failure to comply with the marking statute.  Apple’s summary judgment argument was premised on Golden Bridge’s failure to mark the alleged SEP’s patent number on

The Grand Panel of the Intellectual Property High Court in Tokyo issued three related decisions in the Samsung Apple dispute on Friday. While the official English versions of the decisions are not yet available, sources are reporting that the Grand Panel ruled Samsung could not obtain injunctive relief for Apple’s alleged infringement of a 3GPP

Last Friday, Apple and Google reportedly agreed to dismiss all current lawsuits between them, including standard essential patent cases involving Motorola Mobility that Google recently sold to Lenovo.  The three-sentence joint statement by Apple and Google indicates that their agreement does not include any cross license (to SEPs or otherwise), stating:

Apple and Google have

Yesterday the Federal Circuit issued a blank Rule 36 summary affirmance of the U.S. International Trade Commission’s (ITC) determination that Apple did not infringe a Samsung patent alleged to cover a UMTS standard.  Recall that last year the ITC entered an exclusion order against Apple products found to infringe a Samsung standard essential patent, but

Yesterday, the European Commission issued decisions in two antitrust proceedings centered around the enforcement of standard essential patents (SEPs). The decisions, one involving Samsung and the other Motorola, essentially create a “safe harbour” for willing licensees of FRAND-encumbered SEPs to avoid an injunction and address the circumstances under which an SEP holder may seek injunctive

Today the Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited decision in the appeal from Judge Posner’s ruling that denied both Motorola and Apple damages and injunctive relief in Apple v. Motorola.  Among other things, the Federal Circuit ruled that there is no per se rule that prohibits a party from seeking injunctive relief on a standard essential

With standard-essential-patent (SEP) damages discussions frequently focused on how to calculate a RAND rate, one can sometimes forget that not all SEPs are subject to [F]RAND obligations, which raises the issue whether and to what extent a reasonable royalty rate would be different between RAND and non-RAND encumbered patents. Last week, N.D. Cal. Judge Lucy

Judge Koh recently granted Apple and Samsung’s stipulated request to dismiss without prejudice Samsung’s claims that Apple infringes certain declared-standard essential patents (SEPs) and Apple’s related FRAND defenses and counterclaims.  There is no indication in the filing that the parties are negotiating a settlement as to those SEPs, though that’s always a possibility.  The stipulation