Today, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a Statement of Interest of the United States of America in the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) antitrust lawsuit against Qualcomm about standard essential patent licensing. DOJ does not currently take a position on the merits of the FTC’s liability claim against Qualcomm that is awaiting decision by the district court following a January trial, but is making the court aware that there should be separate briefing and an evidentiary hearing on remedy if the court finds that Qualcomm is liable. This is a very interesting development with implications beyond the instant case with much reading between the lines–and the good stuff buried in footnotes–as to what is to come. Somewhat like the first 10 minutes of last week’s Game of Thrones episode “The Long Night” where warriors lined-up for some kind of battle to happen but it was not clear what exactly that would be.
Continue Reading U.S. Dept. of Justice poised to provide leadership in FTC v. Qualcomm case
Judge Koh dismisses without prejudice Samsung’s standard essential patents and Apple’s related FRAND defenses (5:12-cv-630)
Judge Koh recently granted Apple and Samsung’s stipulated request to dismiss without prejudice Samsung’s claims that Apple infringes certain declared-standard essential patents (SEPs) and Apple’s related FRAND defenses and counterclaims. There is no indication in the filing that the parties are negotiating a settlement as to those SEPs, though that’s always a possibility. The stipulation
RANDomness: Of smartphone wars, SEPs, and sequestration
- Over at Patent Progress, Dan O’Connor has an interesting post
Image courtesy of athenatechs.com in which he addresses the recent use of standard-essential patents in the “smartphone wars” within the larger context of the standard-essential patent universe. Like several of the entities who submitted public comments on the FTC-Google consent decree,
RANDomness
- The Federal Circuit denied Apple’s petition for an en banc rehearing of its prior denial of a preliminary injunction against Samsung based on Apple’s failure to demonstrate a “causal nexus” between infringement and irreparable harm. However, Apple still has an appeal pending of a denial of a permanent injunction against Samsung. (Bloomberg)
- Yesterday