If all of these InterDigital-related FRAND issues seem hard to keep track of, they are — InterDigital is currently suing Huawei, Nokia, Samsung, and ZTE all in a single ITC action (337-TA-868) and in separate parallel actions in Delaware (as well as some of the same parties in a different ITC case, 337-TA-800
Nokia amicus brief urges Federal Circuit to reverse Judge Posner’s standard-essential patent rulings
Earlier this week, both Nokia and BlackBerry (formerly Research In Motion) were both granted leave to file amicus briefs with the Federal Circuit in the Apple v. Motorola appeal of Judge Posner’s June 2012 decision to dismiss the parties’ respective infringement claims. BlackBerry’s brief is still confidential, but Nokia’s is now publicly available.
[2013.05.06 Nokia Amicus Brief]
While Nokia’s amicus brief is styled as being “in support of neither party,” it’s clear that Motorola should be the one happy here — Nokia asks the Federal Circuit to reverse Judge Posner’s decisions relating to Motorola’s standard-essential patents at issue, both with respect to damages and injunctive relief. Nokia claims that Judge Posner’s ruling (1) creates a bright line rule against injunctions that violates Supreme Court precedent, and (2) unnecessarily devalues standard-essential patents by mandating that any damages be based on the smallest salable unit, which runs contrary to industry practices in SEP licensing. A summary is after the jump.
An update on the InterDigital-Huawei/ZTE FRAND fight in Delaware: InterDigital’s reply in support of motion to dismiss FRAND claims
FRAND issues are being hashed out in a lot of jurisdictions right now. Microsoft and Motorola are warring in Washington state, Apple and Motorola are fighting at the Federal Circuit, and Apple and Samsung are awaiting the International Trade Commission’s upcoming ruling later this month. Noted non-practicing entity InterDigital, meanwhile, has been trying
European Commission sends preliminary Statement of Objections to Motorola, finding potential SEP-related antitrust violation
We generally focus on U.S.-specific standard-essential patent issues here at the Essential Patent Blog, but often there are some international developments that are worth noting. Today brings us one of those, as the European Commission announced that it has sent a Statement of Objections to Motorola Mobility as part of its investigation into Motorola’s potential
Federal Circuit denies Motorola’s motion to dismiss or transfer Apple FRAND appeal to 7th Circuit…for now
We’ve got an update from the Apple-Motorola Federal Circuit FRAND jurisdictional dispute. Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied Motorola’s motion to dismiss Apple’s FRAND appeal (or transfer the case to the 7th Circuit). For a recap on the issues surrounding this motion and the Apple-Motorola FRAND appeal (this one from
Huawei, ZTE tell Delaware court that their FRAND claims against InterDigital should not be dismissed
While InterDigital continues to press its claims of 3G- and 4G-essential patent infringement in the International Trade Commission against Huawei, Nokia, Samsung, and ZTE (Inv. No. 337-TA-868), the companies have also been fighting about FRAND-related issues in Delaware, where some of defendants have asserted FRAND-related counterclaims against InterDigital. A few weeks back, we noted InterDigital had asked the court to dismiss Huawei and ZTE’s FRAND counterclaims, arguing that they were not ripe and were not properly pleaded, among other reasons. Last Thursday, Huawei and ZTE filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss [LINK].
Continue Reading Huawei, ZTE tell Delaware court that their FRAND claims against InterDigital should not be dismissed
Apple asks Federal Circuit to affirm Judge Posner’s denial of injunctive relief and damages for Motorola FRAND-pledged standard-essential patents
Much of the activity and attention in the standard-essential patent world over the last few days has been focused on Judge James L. Robart’s groundbreaking decision in the Microsoft-Motorola RAND breach of contract case. But that wasn’t the only RAND-related bit of news happening this past Thursday — that same day, in the Federal Circuit, Apple filed its response to Motorola’s appeal of Judge Posner’s decision to deny both damages and injunctive relief to Motorola in a case involving Apple’s alleged infringement of Motorola standard-essential patents.
Due to the fact that the Federal Circuit has consolidated appeals by both parties, Apple’s brief is technically both a response brief and a reply brief — but we will only deal with the SEP-specific issues here. In the brief, which we’ll delve into after the jump, Apple urges the Federal Circuit to uphold Judge Posner’s findings that, even if infringement could be proven: (1) Motorola failed to introduce a cognizable damages theory for infringement of the SEPs at issue; and (2) Motorola could not show entitlement to injunctive relief for its FRAND-encumbered patents.
Link: [Apple April 25, 2013 Appellate Brief]Continue Reading Apple asks Federal Circuit to affirm Judge Posner’s denial of injunctive relief and damages for Motorola FRAND-pledged standard-essential patents
InterDigital seeks dismissal of Nokia’s FRAND counterclaims
Earlier this month we covered InterDigital’s efforts to dismiss Huawei and ZTE’s FRAND counterclaims, which were asserted against InterDigital in litigations in the U.S. District Court in Delaware. Yesterday, InterDigital filed another motion to dismiss FRAND-related counterclaims in a different Delaware district court litigation — this time, InterDigital seeks to have Nokia’s FRAND counterclaims
Public comments on FTC/DOJ Patent Assertion Entity Workshop include worries that PAEs may “game the system” of standard-setting and RAND licensing
Back in December 2012, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice held a joint workshop to explore the impact that patent assertion entities (PAEs — or non-practicing entities/NPEs) may be having on innovation, competition, and the U.S. economy. The FTC and DOJ invited the public to submit comments for consideration by the agencies, even extending the deadline for submission until early April. All in all, 68 separate submissions have been received and posted on the FTC/DOJ workshop’s site.
The commenters represent a wide variety of industries and interests, and express divergent viewpoints and positions about the effects of PAE activity. Many comments focus on the newly-reintroduced SHIELD Act. Given that the main focus of this blog is on standard-essential patent issues, we won’t even try to give a comprehensive rundown of all of the comments — we’ll leave the focus on non-practicing entities to others. But several of the comments do express particular concern about the interplay between PAEs, standard-setting organizations and standard-essential patents. After the jump, we’ll discuss some of these issues that are being flagged as troublesome.
Public interest briefing wraps up in Samsung-Apple ITC battle (337-TA-794) — parties now play the waiting game on exclusion orders and SEPs
For those of you unfamiliar with the pace of litigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission, it is fast. Just several days ago, we were writing about the comments on the public interest submitted in Inv. No. 337-TA-794 by Apple and Samsung, the ITC Staff, and several other interested non-parties. Late last week, Apple, Samsung, and the ITC staff each submitted responses to these initial public interest comments.
Barring unexpected additional submissions from the parties (e.g., a notice of supplemental authority citing Judge Robart’s forthcoming ruling in the Microsoft-Motorola RAND case, which may come down any day), the briefing in this important ITC case should now be all wrapped up. Now, the waiting game begins — the Commission has until May 31 decide whether it will issue an exclusion order barring Apple products, should it find that they infringe Samsung’s (alleged) 3G UMTS-essential patent(s) (although a ruling could, of course, come before then).
A round-up of and links to the recent responsive submissions, after the jump…
Continue Reading Public interest briefing wraps up in Samsung-Apple ITC battle (337-TA-794) — parties now play the waiting game on exclusion orders and SEPs