FRAND

Subscribe to FRAND via RSS

Earlier this week we noted that Huawei and ZTE have asked the ITC to stay its investigation into InterDigital’s complaint of 3G/4G standard-essential patent infringement.  This was done in part because Huawei and ZTE have requested that the District Court of Delaware to expedite a determination of a FRAND rate for InterDigital’s patents.  Yesterday, InterDigital filed virtually identical opposition briefs in both cases (Opp. to Huawei / Opp. to ZTE), in which it urged the court to deny the motions — arguing that it is improper for Huawei and ZTE “to seek a purely hypothetical and advisory opinion in the form of an expedited ‘FRAND rate’ determination” while still maintaining an ability to refuse to pay in the event the patents are later found invalid or non-essential/not infringed.  This is an interesting issue surrounding FRAND licensing that has been the topic of much debate lately.
Continue Reading InterDigital calls Huawei/ZTE’s requests for expedited FRAND determinations “impractical” and “improper”

A quick update for those interested in the Apple-Motorola Federal Circuit FRAND appeal:

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Gunn v. Minton, where the Court determined that a plaintiff’s patent litigation-related state law malpractice claim did not “arise under” the federal patent laws and did not create federal jurisdiction under…

ITC LogoYesterday the U.S. International Trade Commission announced that it has instituted a Section 337 investigation titled Certain Wireless Communications Base Stations and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-871.  This investigation is based on a complaint filed on January 24, 2013 by Adaptix, Inc. (a subsidiary of noted publicly-traded non-practicing entity Acacia Research) against Ericsson.  The…

This past Friday (Feb. 22) was the deadline for the public to submit comments to the Federal Trade Commission on the FTC’s consent decree that it entered into last month with Google and Motorola Mobility.  More than two dozen individuals, companies, and organizations chose to submit comments, and their submissions reflected a wide range of interests and opinions about issues relating to both standard-essential patent issues and Google’s search practices.

These comments may be accessed from the FTC’s web site.  In a future post, we will do a deep dive into some of the more interesting comments submitted.  In the meantime, after the jump is a list of the entities that submitted comments, along with links to their web sites:

On Friday we posted about the Answers filed by the respondents in In the Matter Certain Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-868) — the case better known as InterDigital’s ITC action against Huawei, Nokia, Samsung, and ZTE.  And we’ve previously discussed how Huawei and ZTE are currently seeking an expedited determination of FRAND terms in Delaware district court, where they also expalined that they would seek to stay the ITC action.  Today, Huawei and ZTE’s motion to stay the ITC investigation hit the docket (it was actually filed on Friday).  Huawei and ZTE seek to halt the ITC investigation pending (1) the outcome of Inv. No. 337-TA-800 (involving the same parties and some of the same patents); and (2) a determination in Delaware of the terms of a FRAND license to InterDigital’s patents.
Continue Reading Huawei, ZTE seek stay of InterDigital 3G/4G ITC investigation

Lately, there’s been a lot of activity in InterDigital-related cases, both in district courts and the ITC.  Aside from the hearing in Inv. No. 337-TA-800 (scheduled to wrap up today), the respondents named in InterDigital’s latest complaint (Inv. No. 337-TA-868) — Huawei, Nokia, Samsung, and ZTE — filed their answers yesterday.  Given InterDigital’s assertion of 3G/4G cellular standard-essential patents here, it comes as no surprise to see that in addition to customary patent infringement defenses, the respondents have asserted several FRAND-specific defenses.  Below is a quick rundown of the FRAND-specific defenses asserted by the individual respondents.


Continue Reading Huawei/Samsung/ZTE answer InterDigital’s ITC complaint, assert FRAND-related defenses

CAFCToday, Motorola Mobility filed a reply brief in support of its efforts to dismiss Apple’s Federal Circuit FRAND appeal (or at least transfer it to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals).  As you’ll recall, a few weeks ago, Motorola filed a unique motion to dismiss Apple’s appeal, claiming  the Federal Circuit lacked jurisdiction because (for more info, see our original post on Motorola’s motion).  Apple filed an opposition, asserting that the case was properly appealed to the Federal Circuit.  In its relatively short reply, Motorola targets two particular assertions that Apple claims vest the Federal Circuit with jurisdiction: (1) that Apple’s declaratory judgment complaint was filed “in response” to a hypothetical complaint of patent infringement; and (2) that the dismissal of certain Apple claims without prejudice does not divest the Federal Circuit of jurisdiction.


Continue Reading Apple, Motorola continue fight over Federal Circuit FRAND jurisdiction: Motorola’s Reply Brief

In early January, InterDigital filed a Section 337 complaint in the U.S. International Trade Commission against Huawei, Nokia, Samsung, and ZTE, accusing those companies’ 3G/4G-compliant smartphones and tablets of infringing several InterDigital patents (this is now ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-868).  Because the ITC cannot award monetary relief, it’s common for complainants to also file corresponding infringement actions in district court, which InterDigital did here in the District of Delaware.  In order to relieve ITC respondents from the burden of litigating in multiple venues simultaneously, 28 U.S.C. § 1659 allows respondents to seek a mandatory stay of the district court action pending the outcome of the ITC case.  Generally, respondents seek such a stay.  But here, neither Huawei nor ZTE have sought a stay — in fact, they have asked the Delaware district court to expedite discovery on FRAND issues.  It’s an interesting strategic move in which they leverage recent guidance from government agencies and other pending litigation, and it’s a strategy that (if successful) may be followed by many more ITC respondents in the future.
Continue Reading Huawei, ZTE seek expedited FRAND determinations in InterDigital 3G/4G standard-essential patent dispute

ITC LogoAs we noted earlier this week, the ITC is currently holding the evidentiary hearing in its investigation surrounding InterDigital’s 3G standard-essential patent infringement complaint against Nokia, Huawei, and ZTE (Inv. No. 337-TA-800).  As with many ITC hearings, much of the information is kept out of the public record (and that’s particularly true for FRAND-related issues, where sensitive licensing data is often discussed).  But today, the ITC just released the public version of Order No. 70, the confidential version of which originally issued way back in September 2012.  In this order, ALJ David P. Shaw ordered InterDigital and Nokia to both produce various information relating to the FRAND affirmative defenses raised by Nokia in the case, including license agreements, license negotiation documents, and other documents relating to FRAND.
Continue Reading InterDigital, Nokia ordered to produced FRAND-related and licensing documents in ITC case (337-TA-800)

ITC LogoWe’ve previously covered the bilateral standard-essential patent battle brewing between Ericsson and Samsung in the U.S. International Trade Commission (as well as the Eastern District of Texas).  The ITC has instituted two investigations surrounding the parties’ claims: Inv. No. 337-TA-862 (based on Ericsson’s complaint) and Inv. No. 337-TA-866 (based on Samsung’s complaint).  Yesterday, Samsung filed the public version of its Response to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation (essentially, an answer to Ericsson’s complaint) in the -862 investigation.  Below is an overview of this filing, in which (surprise!) F/RAND-related issues and defenses have a starring role.
Continue Reading Samsung responds to Ericsson’s ITC complaint, accuses Ericsson of violating F/RAND obligations (337-TA-862)