We previously discussed the opening comments filed by respondent Funai in the International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation of whether Realtek and Funai infringe complainant LSI’s alleged 802.11 and H.264 standard essential patents (SEPs). Funai recently filed two sets of reply comments as part of the ITC’s review of the ALJ’s initial determination rejecting Realtek and

A few weeks ago we summarized the opening comments filed by respondent Realtek in the International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation of whether Realtek and Funai infringe complainant LSI’s alleged 802.11 and H.264 standard essential patents (SEPs). The ITC is currently reviewing the ALJ’s initial determination of non-infringement of LSI’s SEPs and rejection of Realtek and

We previously discussed the opening comments filed by Complainant LSI in the International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation of whether Realtek and Funai infringe LSI’s alleged 802.11 and H.264 standard essential patents (SEPs). To recap, the ALJ’s initial determination found the SEP patents were not infringed but rejected RAND-based defenses. The Commission decided to review the

Our prior posts discussed Complainant LSI’s comments and respondent Realtek’s comments in the ITC’s investigation of whether Realtek and Funai infringe LSI’s alleged standard essential patents (SEPs).  These comments were submitted in response to the Commission’s request for information on various issues to aid in its review of the ALJ’s conclusion that Realtek and Funai

We previously discussed the comments filed by complainant LSI in the International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation of whether Realtek and Funai infringe LSI’s alleged 802.11 and H.264 standard essential patents (SEPs).  The ALJ’s initial determination found the SEP patents were not infringed but otherwise rejected RAND-based defenses.  The Commission then decided to review the ALJ’s

Last week (Thu. Oct. 17, 2013), the International Trade Commission (ITC) issued a Notice that it will review “in its entirety” Administrative Law Judge Shaw’s initial determination (ID) that found no infringement of LSI’s 802.11 and H.264 standard essential patents (SEPs), but otherwise rejected RAND-based defenses, as discussed in our prior post.

The ITC

Yesterday, Judge Robart issued an Order that denied Motorola’s motion to overturn the jury’s verdict that Motorola breached its RAND obligations in dealing with Microsoft on standard essential patents (SEPs) for IEEE 802.11 WiFi standards and ITU H.264 video compression standards. Judge Robart’s ruling here indicates that assessing compliance with a RAND obligation is a

Yesterday marked the start of the long-awaited Microsoft-Motorola RAND breach of contract jury trial, taking place before Judge James L. Robart in the Western District of Washington.  Over the next week or so, the jury will hear testimony on whether Motorola breached its IEEE- and ITU-related RAND obligations through its licensing negotiations and course of

Last month, the ITC issued a Notice of ALJ David P. Shaw’s Final Initial Determination on Violation in In the Matter of Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-837), the investigation into LSI/Agere’s allegations that Realtek and Funai infringed 802.11-essential and H.264-essential patents (as well as one non-SEP).  The ITC found

A month ago, we discussed how Microsoft and Motorola filed dueling summary judgment motions in an attempt to eliminate some of the issues from the upcoming RAND breach of contract jury trial in Seattle (currently set to begin August 26).  Judge James L. Robart held an oral argument on July 31, and this morning, his order hit the docket (the order is actually dated yesterday — Judge Robart is apparently not taking Sundays off).

[2013.08.11 Order on Microsoft-Motorola SJ Motions]

As you can tell from the title of this post, Judge Robart granted summary judgment on some — but not nearly all — of the issues briefed by the parties.  Both Microsoft and Motorola prevailed on some issues and lost on others.  The bottom line is that the jury will still have a lot to decide in this case.  After the jump, we’ll take a look at how Judge Robart ruled — starting with the motions that he denied.


Continue Reading