As we noted last week, various non-parties have begun submitting statements on the public interest in connection with ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-800, In the Matter of Certain Wireless Devices With 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof.  Over the last several days, both the complainant InterDigital and each of the respondents (Nokia, Huawei, and ZTE) have

Earlier this week, we took a quick look at the U.S. International Trade Commission’s landmark opinion 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) — and we promised an annotated version of the Commission’s rather lengthy opinion.  Well, without

Late last week, the ITC finally released the public version of its Final Determination and Commission Opinion 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) — the case where the Commission last month issued a controversial exclusion order based on Apple’s infringement of a Samsung 3G-essential patent.  The document, linked to below, includes both the Commission’s determination of a violation of Section 337 and its decision to issue an exclusion order despite the fact that Samsung had previously pledged to license the patent at issue on FRAND terms, along with a dissent by Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert from the decision to issue an exclusion order.

[337-TA-794 Commission Opinion (Public Version)]

As you can see, the Commission’s opinion is long and detailed, and we are in the midst of preparing an annotated version of the opinion that we’ll be posting later this week (similar to what we did with the Microsoft-Motorola RAND opinion).  But after the jump, we’ll give you a quick overview of the Commission’s determination and the dissent’s views on the FRAND and SEP-related public interest issues.


Continue Reading

On Friday, U.S. International Trade Commission Administrative Law Judge David P. Shaw issued a Notice of Initial Determination in In the Matter of Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-800.  This investigation was originally instituted nearly two years ago based on a complaint filed by InterDigital against Huawei, Nokia, ZTE, and LG, in which InterDigital accused the companies of infringing several InterDigital patents alleged to be essential to various 3G cellular communications standards.  The evidentiary hearing was held in January 2013, and the case involves the intersection of a two issues that have drawn a lot of attention lately — the assertion of standard-essential patents at the ITC (and what if any relevance FRAND licensing obligations have to the proceedings), as well as patent infringement cases brought by non-practicing entities (InterDigital is an NPE that has been deemed a “patent troll” by some, while others take a more favorable view of the company’s activities).

So far, it appears that InterDigital’s SEP infringement assertions have failed (at least for now).  While the public version of ALJ Shaw’s Initial Determination won’t become available for at least a few weeks, Friday’s Notice indicates that ALJ Shaw found no violations of Section 337 with respect to any of the seven remaining asserted patents. 
Continue Reading

By now, it’s really no surprise to those who pay attention to SEP issues that certain lawmakers have their eyes on the standard-essential patent world, as well.  Although non-practicing entity issues generally grab headlines these days, Congress does make some time for SEPs, too.  One example of this just became public — a May 21

ITC LogoOne thing that has frustrated many followers of the Samsung-Apple ITC case is the currently unavailability of a public version of the Commission’s Final Determination.  Generally, the only insight into the ITC’s reasoning came from the limited information in the Commission’s Notice of Final Determination.  But for those of you who are interested, we thought it’d be worth taking a look at the publicly-available documents that spell out the specific exclusionary relief awarded to Samsung in this case:

  1. 337-TA-794 Limited Exclusion Order
  2. 337-TA-794 Cease and Desist Order

After the jump, we’ll dive into these in a little more detail.


Continue Reading

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

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

While there are just a few days to go before the target date for the ITC’s long-awaited Final Determination in Samsung’s Section 337 investigation against Apple, that hasn’t stopped the parties from continuing to spar.  Last week, Apple filed a “Notice of New Authority and New Facts” with the ITC, directing the Commission’s attention to