ETSI

Subscribe to ETSI via RSS

Back in 2011, Intellectual Ventures fired off a patent infringement complaint against Motorola Mobility in the District of Delaware.  That case is scheduled to go to trial early in 2014  But today, Intellectual Ventures upped the ante, announcing that it has filed a second patent infringement complaint against Google subsidiary Motorola Mobility, choosing this time…

CAFCLast week, the Federal Circuit granted a motion by Microsoft for permission to file an amicus brief in the Apple-Motorola appeal (No. 12-1548, Judge Posner edition).  Microsoft then filed its amicus brief, becoming the latest in a long time of companies (see, e.g., here, here, here, and here) to weigh in on the case.  Today, the public version of Microsoft’s brief became available.  In it, Microsoft supports Apple and Judge Posner, but cautions the Federal Circuit against making an overly broad ruling and deciding issues related to standard-essential patents and RAND licensing obligations that are not present before the court.

[2013.06.04 Microsoft Amicus Brief (12-1548)]

Microsoft pulls no punches — it argues at the outset that Motorola’s positions “are wrong as a legal matter and terrible as a policy matter.”  That should come as no surprise, given Microsoft’s current litigation disputes with Motorola (as well as ongoing competition with its parent company, Google).  But Microsoft claims that its interest in this case goes far beyond its adversarial relationship with Motorola, arguing that as an active participant in many SSOs and implementer of many standards, Microsoft wants to ensure that standards are broadly implemented for the benefit of the public.Continue Reading Microsoft amicus brief supports Apple, cautions Federal Circuit about breadth of ruling in Apple-Motorola appeal

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

In a post yesterday, we discussed Nokia’s amicus brief submitted “in support of neither party” in the Apple-Motorola FRAND Federal Circuit appeal (Judge Posner edition).  The amicus brief recently filed by BlackBerry (formerly Research In Motion) is now public, and it is very similar to Nokia’s — at least when it comes to the issue of the availability of injunctive relief.  While not expressly supporting Motorola, BlackBerry echoes Motorola’s (as well as Nokia’s) argument that injunction relief should not be categorically precluded for FRAND-encumbered standard-essential patents.

[2013.05.07 BlackBerry Amicus Brief]

Coincidentally, BlackBerry also now finds itself on the receiving end of a new patent infringement complaint from Canadian non-practicing entity Wi-LAN, which is based on BlackBerry’s alleged infringement of a patent that Wi-LAN claims is essential to the ETSI 3GPP Long-Term Evolution (LTE) telecommunications standard.


Continue Reading BlackBerry files amicus brief supporting availability of SEP injunctions in Fed Circuit FRAND appeal (and also gets sued by Wi-LAN for LTE patent infringement)

FRAND issues are being hashed out in a lot of jurisdictions right now.  Microsoft and Motorola are warring in Washington state, Apple and Motorola are fighting at the Federal Circuit, and Apple and Samsung are awaiting the International Trade Commission’s upcoming ruling later this month.  Noted non-practicing entity InterDigital, meanwhile, has been trying…