In recent posts, we covered the briefs submitted by Samsung and Apple and the ITC Staff in response to the U.S. International Trade Commission’s request for additional briefing in Inv. No. 337-TA-794.  We noted that several other parties also submitted responses, offering their views on how an exclusion order in this case might affect the public interest.  These parties include:

Each of these parties warns the ITC that allowing exclusion orders for FRAND-pledged standard-essential patents may have adverse effects on U.S. consumers and the U.S. economy, particularly future standards-setting activity.  A brief summary of these public interest submissions is after the jump.
Continue Reading A final round-up of new public interest submissions in Samsung-Apple ITC case (Inv. No. 337-TA-794)

ITC LogoLast week, both Apple and Samsung filed their initial submissions in response to the U.S. International Trade Commission’s March 13 order for additional briefing in In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Table Computers (Inv. No. 337-TA-794).  In a post last Friday, we discussed the submission by the ITC’s Office of Unfair Import Investigations.  After the jump, we’ll give an overview of the positions set forth in the parties’ respective briefs.  It will not be a surprise to anyone following the smartphone wars or standard-essential patent issues that Apple and Samsung vehemently disagree over nearly everything having to do with the standard-essential patent and FRAND issues in this case.
Continue Reading New ITC briefs filed by Apple, Samsung demonstrate fundamental dispute over standard-essential patents and meaning of FRAND

This past Wednesday, April 3 was the deadline for the parties and the public to submit responses to the U.S. International Trade Commission’s request for additional briefing in Inv. No. 337-TA-794 (Samsung-Apple).  In addition to Apple and Samsung, several other parties submitted responses, including:

In a later post, we will summarize the submissions from Apple, Samsung, and the various third parties.  But in this post we’ll address the brief submitted by the OUII (or ITC “Staff”) — a third party that represents the public interest in many ITC cases (and who, as we recently noted, has taken a keen interest in SEP-related issues of late).

Notably, OUII expresses the view that public interest considerations do not bar the issuance of an exclusion order based on Apple’s alleged infringement of Samsung’s 3G-essential technology.  In OUII’s view, even if Samsung has FRAND obligations with respect to the standard-essential patents at issue, Apple has not carried its burden to show that Samsung violated these obligations.
Continue Reading ITC Staff: Exclusion order is an appropriate remedy for Apple infringement of Samsung SEP

Last week we discussed a couple of amicus briefs in the Apple-Motorola Federal Circuit appeal that addressed standard-essential patent issues.  Intel supported Apple’s view that injunctions should generally not be available for FRAND-pledges SEPs, while Qualcomm supported Motorola’s contention that there is no such blanket restriction.  In this post, we’ll address two more briefs, both of which were filed by parties supporting Apple: (1) the Business Software Alliance, which is a trade association of software and hardware technology companies; and (2) a group of law school professors.


Continue Reading More amici support Apple’s opinion of FRAND: Business Software Alliance and law professors give their views

CAFCEarlier today we summarized the amicus brief filed by Intel in the Apple v. Motorola Federal Circuit appeal, and we noted that a number of other not-yet-publicly-available amicus briefs were also filed with the court.  Today, the amicus brief filed by Qualcomm hit the docket — and out of all of the recent amicus briefs, it’s the only one that was expressly filed in support of Motorola.

As it has consistently argued in the past, Qualcomm — a holder of a significant portfolio of SEPs — argues here that a FRAND commitment does not categorically preclude injunctive relief, and it urges the Federal Circuit to refrain from adopting such a rule.  Qualcomm also argues against the particular methodologies of calculating reasonable royalty damages for both FRAND-pledged essential patents and non-essential patents (e.g., the so-called ex ante or incremental value rules) that certain amici have advocated for.
Continue Reading Qualcomm sides with Motorola on FRAND/SEP issues in Apple v. Motorola Federal Circuit appeal

CAFCBack in January, we summarized a number of amicus briefs filed by a diverse group of companies and organizations concerning the issues in the Apple v. Motorola Inc. Federal Circuit appeal of Judge Posner’s decision to dismiss the parties’ respective patent infringement cases.  We noted that because the Federal Circuit extended the deadline to file amicus briefs until seven days after Motorola’s opening brief was due, more parties were certain to make their views on standard-essential patent and FRAND issues known to the court.  Sure enough, several others filed amicus briefs last week.  Yesterday, the amicus brief filed by Intel became publicly available.

As you can see from our summary below, Intel’s brief clearly supports Apple, at least with respect to Apple’s cross-appeal of the standard-essential patent issues in the case.
Continue Reading Intel files amicus brief supporting Apple in Federal Circuit appeal of Judge Posner decision

On March 5, 2013 at 2:00pm, the Intellectual Property Owners Association is holding a webinar to discuss the potential implications that the FTC-Google consent decree may have on the world of standard-essential patents.  The webinar is taking place as part of of IPO’s weekly IP Chat Channel series.  David W. Long, a member of Dow Lohnes’s Litigation group and a co-author of The Essential Patent Blog, will be one of the webinar presenters.  Details on the webinar and information on how to register for it is after the jump.
Continue Reading Upcoming IPO webinar on standard-essential patents and FTC-Google consent decree features Dow Lohnes’s David Long

FTCYesterday we covered several public comments submitted to the FTC by various professional organizations and trade/industry associations surround the FTC-Google consent decree.  Today, we’re here to tackle the submissions from several large companies that chose to comment on the FTC order.  These companies include Apple, Ericsson, Microsoft, Qualcomm, and Research in Motion.
Continue Reading FTC-Google public comments round-up #2: Tech companies have their say

CAFCThis isn’t a necessarily a standard-essential patent issue (and it’s been covered by many others such as IPLaw360 and Groklaw over the past couple days), but as something that could affect how parties enforce standard-essential patent rights in U.S. courts, we thought it’d be worth a quick post.  Earlier this week, Apple filed its opening brief in its appeal of Judge Lucy Koh’s decision to deny Apple a permanent injunction against Samsung.  In her post-trial decision applying the eBay analysis and denying an injunction, Judge Koh found that Apple failed to demonstrate a “causal nexus” between Samsung’s infringement of Apple’s utility and design patents and the irreparable harm to Apple (e.g., loss of market share and downstream sales).  Apple argues in its brief to the Federal Circuit that there was no need for it to demonstrate such a causal nexus, and that even if there is, the evidence does show a nexus between infringement and irreparable harm.
Continue Reading Apple urges Federal Circuit to eliminate or minimize “causal nexus” requirement for permanent injunctions

Lost in the all of the publicity surrounding the FTC’s consent decree that ended its investigation of Google and Motorola Mobility yesterday is the fact that while the FTC’s decision not to proceed with action against Google for its search practices was unanimous, its decision to issue a complaint and order relating to Google’s enforcement of its SEPs was not — Commissioner Maureen K. Olhausen submitted a dissenting statement.  (Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch issued a separate statement, but voted in favor of issuing the complaint).  The mere fact that the decision was not unanimous isn’t that remarkable in and of itself, as the five-member Commission often reaches split decisions.  However, Commissioner Olhausen’s dissent raises some issues about the FTC’s action that warrant mentioning here.
Continue Reading A dissenting voice from the FTC/Google consent agreement