FRAND

Subscribe to FRAND via RSS

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 ITC releases public version of the Commission opinion (and dissent) in Samsung-Apple case (337-TA-794)

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 ITC rules against InterDigital’s claims of 3G-essential patent infringement in preliminary finding

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 Apple, Samsung take their standard-essential patent battle to the U.S. Trade Representative

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…

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

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…

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…

A couple weeks ago, Apple directed the Federal Circuit’s attention to the Microsoft-Motorola RAND-setting opinion.  Apple claimed that in a variety of ways, Judge Robart’s decision supported Apple’s arguments on appeal.  This past Friday, Motorola filed a brief response to Apple’s citation of supplemental authority — and in it, Motorola claims that the reasoning of…

Last month, we briefly discussed an article that proposed that “baseball-style” arbitration be used to resolve FRAND licensing disputes.  The following guest post about this article was authored by David Balto, a former Policy Director of the Bureau of Competition for the Federal Trade Commission who currently has his own public interest antitrust practice here in Washington, DC.  David’s views expressed below are his own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the authors of The Essential Patent Blog, Dow Lohnes PLLC, or Dow Lohnes’s clients.

Baseball has the Best Rules:  Using Arbitration to Solve FRAND Disputes

How to calculate Fair, Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory (FRAND) royalties seems like one of the most intractable problems firms, standard setting organizations and the courts are grappling with.   No wonder, there is sparse authority and relatively few litigated cases.

Two of the most thoughtful scholars on antitrust intellectual property issues — Professors Mark Lemley and Carl Shapiro — have weighed in and issued a paper outlining an interesting solution to the FRAND licensing problem and it provides a clarion call for how to grapple with the problem.Continue Reading Baseball has the Best Rules: Using Arbitration to Solve FRAND Disputes

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