The U.S. Trade Representative’s recent disapproval of the ITC’s exclusion order in Inv. No. 337-TA-794 has generated a lot of discussion and uncertainty about the future enforcement of standard-essential patents at the U.S. International Trade Commission. But it seems generally accepted that going forward, both the Commission and litigants are going to have do

The world of standard-essential patent litigation has seen some significant upheaval over the past few months, particularly with the Microsoft-Motorola RAND-setting ruling and the ITC’s exclusion order in Samsung-Apple (and the USTR’s subsequent veto).  Today there will be a complimentary webinar in conjunction with the American Intellectual Property Law Association’s (AIPLA) Standards & Open

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

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

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

Earlier this week, the ITC issued the public version of ALJ David P. Shaw’s Initial Determination finding no violation of Section 337 in in In the Matter of Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components ThereofInv. No. 337-TA-800 — the ITC’s investigation into InterDigital’s accusations that Huawei, Nokia, and ZTE infringed several

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

Earlier this week, we discussed N.D. Cal. Judge Ronald Whyte’s order granting partial summary judgment and issuing a preliminary injunction in a Realtek v. LSI district court case.  As we explained in our post, while the district court found that LSI had breached its contractual RAND obligations by filing an ITC complaint without first making

In recent posts, we covered the briefs submitted by Samsung and Apple and the ITC Staff in response to the U.S. International Trade Commission’s request for additional briefing in Inv. No. 337-TA-794.  We noted that several other parties also submitted responses, offering their views on how an exclusion order in this case might affect the public interest.  These parties include:

Each of these parties warns the ITC that allowing exclusion orders for FRAND-pledged standard-essential patents may have adverse effects on U.S. consumers and the U.S. economy, particularly future standards-setting activity.  A brief summary of these public interest submissions is after the jump.
Continue Reading

Last week, it was reported that Apple won a decision against Samsung in Tokyo, Japan, where a judge ruled that Samsung failed to negotiate in good faith with Apple before bringing patent infringement claims over its standard-essential patents.  Until today, the court’s actual ruling was not publicly available.  But yesterday, Apple submitted a “Notice of New Facts” and a redacted copy of a translation of the Tokyo court’s decision to the U.S. International Trade Commission in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-794, and this submission hit the ITC’s docket this morning.

Recall that the -794 case is the ITC’s investigation over Apple’s alleged infringement of several Samsung patents (including two 3G cellular standard-essential patents), and that a Final Determination by the Commission is due no later than this Thursday, March 7 — and that the issue of the propriety of issuing an exclusion order for standard-essential patent infringement has been hotly debated here.  Apple argues that the Tokyo court’s decision and factual findings “underscore that it would be against the public interest to issue an exclusionary remedy to Samsung on declared-essential patents.”


Continue Reading