Motorola and Apple are currently facing off over patent-related issues in several ongoing judicial proceedings, including multiple appeals before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. One of these Federal Circuit appeals was brought by Apple over Judge Crabb’s dismissal of Apple’s claims that Motorola violated the antitrust laws and breached its contracts with SSOs in conducting its SEP-related licensing and enforcement activities. But on January 25, Motorola filed a motion with the Federal Circuit to dismiss Apple’s appeal (or transfer it to the Seventh Circuit), asserting that the Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. While at first blush this seems like just a mundane dispute over civil procedure issues, a decision on this motion may have significant consequences for future FRAND-related proceedings.Continue Reading Motorola disputes Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction over Apple’s FRAND-related appeal, argues for dismissal or transfer
Until today, the U.S International Trade Commission had set a deadline of February 6, 2013 to issue its Final Determination 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). In this highly-anticipated decision, the ITC is likely to address various issues relating to the assertion of standard-essential patents in Section 337 investigations before the Commission (for more information, see our previous post on the case). However, today the ITC issued a Notice of Commission Determination to Extend the Target Date for Completion of the Investigation, giving notice that it is extending the target date for issuance of its Final Determination until March 7, 2013.
Continue Reading Decision delayed in Samsung-Apple ITC case until March 7
Last week, the United States Supreme Court handed down its unanimous opinion in Already, LLC v. Nike (No. 11-982). The Court held that Nike’s issuance of a broad covenant not to sue on one of its trademarks extinguished Already’s standing to its counterclaim for invalidity of Nike’s trademark. While this case involved trademarks, not patents,
Later this year, in the case of Apple Inc. v. Motorola Inc. (Nos. 2012-1548, -1549), the Federal Circuit is set to address several issues that could have a big effect on future licensing and assertion of standard-essential patents. As explained in our previous post “catching up on” the details of this dispute, this appeal follows Judge Posner’s dismissal of both Apple’s and Motorola’s dueling infringement claims, which was based on the parties’ failure to prove entitlement to the remedies sought. Because Motorola had asserted a FRAND-encumbered standard-essential patent against Apple’s UMTS-compliant products, the Federal Circuit is likely to decide at least two issues that may have widespread implications for SEP licensing and litigation for years to come: (1) whether injunctive relief may be an appropriate remedy for Apple’s alleged infringement of Motorola’s FRAND-pledged SEPs; and (2) how to calculate damages for Apple’s alleged infringement of Motorola’s FRAND-pledged SEPs.
Continue Reading Various amici weigh in on SEP-related issues in Apple-Motorola Federal Circuit appeal
Because so many SEP-related issues have arisen over the past year, we will periodically revisit some of the more important episodes with a brief post. Next month, the U.S. International Trade Commission will issue a Final Determination in In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers (No. 337-TA-794), a Section 337 patent infringement action brought by Samsung against Apple. This presents us with a timely opportunity to discuss the background of some of the SEP and FRAND-related issues of first impression that may be decided by the Commission in the case.
The Samsung-Apple ITC investigation (337-TA-794) originated with a complaint brought by Samsung against Apple back in June 2011, in which Samsung accused various Apple products of infringing five patents. Two of these patents — U.S. Pat Nos. 7,706,348 and 7,486,644 — were alleged by Samsung to be essential to the UMTS 3G cellular standard. Not surprisingly, Apple claimed that Samsung’s FRAND obligations with respect to these SEPs prevent Samsung from receiving an exclusion order, in the event Apple is found to violate Section 337.Continue Reading Catching up on . . . the Samsung-Apple ITC action (Inv. No. 337-TA-794)
Late last week, Apple Inc. filed a notice of appeal with the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, announcing its intent to appeal to the Federal Circuit Judge Barbara B. Crabb’s dismissal of Apple’s SEP-related contract and antitrust claims against Motorola Mobility (case No. 3:11-cv-00178-bbc). This presents us with an opportunity to do a brief “catching up on” post on this particular portion of the larger Apple-Motorola dispute.
Continue Reading Catching up on … Apple v. Motorola Mobility (W.D. Wis.)
On Friday, January 4, 2013, a non-practicing entity named Steelhead Licensing LLC filed a litany of SEP-related lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against various wireless device manufacturers and cellular carriers. Each of the entities is accused of infringing a single, soon-to-expire (on Feb. 13) patent — U.S. Pat. No. 5,491,834, entitled “Mobile Radio Handover Initiation Determination.”
Continue Reading Steelhead Licensing LLC files suit claiming wireless equipment makers and cellular carriers infringe cellular-essential patent
Because so many SEP-related issues have arisen over the past year, we will periodically revisit some of the more important episodes with a brief post. Judge Richard Posner’s June 22, 2012 ruling in the Apple v. Motorola patent infringement litigation in the Northern District of Illinois, and the subsequent appeal to the Federal Circuit fall into this category.
Even people who don’t routinely follow the smartphone patent wars likely are aware of the patent dispute between Motorola and Apple. After prior license negotiations failed, the parties filed dueling patent infringement lawsuits in October 2010. Some of these infringement actions were consolidated in a case before Judge Posner, who sat by designation at the district court. A jury trial was scheduled for June 2012: Apple asserted Motorola infringed claims of four non-standard-essential patents, while Motorola asserted Apple infringed claims of one patent that was essential to the Universal Mobile Telecommunications Standard (UMTS, a 3G cellular standard). But as the trial date approached, Judge Posner excluded all of the parties’ respective expert testimony on damages. Finding that neither party could prove an entitlement to damages, Judge Posner tentatively canceled the jury trial, finding that it would make little sense to hold a jury trial on infringement liability if a party could not receive relief. However, he allowed the parties to submit further briefing, including relating to the potential for equitable remedies such as injunctive relief. Because Motorola asserted an SEP that was encumbered by a FRAND licensing commitment, Judge Posner specifically requested that Motorola address the bearing of FRAND on the injunction analysis.Continue Reading Catching up on … Apple v. Motorola (N.D. Ill./Fed. Cir.)