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
Federal Circuit
Appeal of Judge Robart’s RAND ruling transfered to Ninth Circuit (Microsoft v. Motorola)
Today the Federal Circuit (Lourie, Dyk and Reyna) granted Microsoft’s motion to transfer Motorola’s appeal of Judge Robart’s RAND ruling to the Ninth Circuit, settling the parties dispute whether the Federal Circuit or Ninth Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over this particular appeal (see our Dec. 16, 2013 post and prior posts summarizing transfer…
Qualcomm and Nokia submit amici curiae briefs to the Federal Circuit in Ericsson v. D-Link appeal
Qualcomm and Nokia weighed-in on the Ericsson v. D-Link appeal yesterday, each filing amici curiae briefs with the Federal Circuit. The parties’ positions favored the patent owner, though each adopted different approaches to the issues on appeal. Qualcomm focused on the fact-specific contractual nature of RAND commitments that patent owners rely on based on an…
Patent Case: Federal Circuit denies mandamus in two cases seeking transfer of patent assertion entity cases
Yesterday, in two separate precedential decisions on mandamus, the Federal Circuit refused to overturn the district courts’ decisions not to transfer patent assertion entity cases to the defendants’ home forum: In re Apple, Misc. 13-156 (mandamus from E.D. Tex.) and In re Barnes Noble, Misc. 13-162 (mandamus from W.D. Tenn.). Both mandamus orders were…
Apple Argues SEP Issues to Federal Circuit in Samsung ITC Appeal
Last week, Apple filed its brief as an intervenor in the Federal Circuit appeal involving Samsung’s stymied ITC case against Apple (Inv. No. 337-TA-794). Arguing the ITC’s finding of no violation should be affirmed with respect to the one patent-at-issue, Apple’s brief raised a number of SEP issues involving Samsung’s involvement with the IETF and…
Supreme Court Rules that Burden to Show Infringement in Declaratory Judgment Action for Non-Infringement Remains with Patentee
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Medtronic, Inv. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, unanimously reversing the Federal Circuit’s decision below and resolving two issues that are commonly disputed in the lower courts. First, the Court held that the Federal Circuit had subject-matter jurisdiction over an appeal of an action for a…
Motorola and Apple Dispute Whether Apple’s FRAND Claims Should Have Been Dismissed (Apple v. Motorola, Fed. Cir. 2013-1150, -1182)
The parties and amicus have now finished briefing in the appeal from Judge Crabb’s ruling that dismissed Apple’s action seeking a declaration of a FRAND royalty because Apple would not agree to be bound by that ruling. This post summarizes the parties most recent filings.
First, recall that last summer we posted about Apple’s opening…
Supreme Court to review induced/multiple actor infringement (Limelight v. Akamai)
Today the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Limelight v. Akamai to review the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision that induced infringement under Section 271(b) involving multiple actors — e.g., internet service provider performing some steps of a patent claim and end-customers doing final step — does not require establishing direct infringement under Section 271(a).
The…
American Antitrust Institute Contends Georgia-Pacific Factors Are Innappropriate for RAND-Encumbered Patents (Ericsson v. D-Link, Fed. Cir.)
Two weeks ago, we posted about non-party IEEE’s amicus curaie brief in Ericsson v. D-Link, et al., an appeal pending before the Federal Circuit. The appeal, initiated by defendants D-Link, Dell, Acer, Gateway, Netgear and Toshiba, challenges a jury’s damage award against the defendants for infringement of plaintiff Ericsson’s patents that are claimed to be…
Microsoft responds that Ninth Circuit jurisdiction is law of the case in RAND dispute with Motorola (Fed. Cir. 14-1089)
Last week Microsoft filed a reply supporting its motion to transfer to the Ninth Circuit Motorola’s appeal of Judge Robart’s RAND ruling (see our prior posts on Microsoft’s motion and Motorola’s opposition). Microsoft argues that the Ninth Circuit has appellate jurisdiction under law of the case, because issues of the contract action being consolidated…
