A jury recently found that Huawei willfully infringed four patents owned by PanOptis alleged to be essential to mobile cellular standards and subject to a FRAND commitment as well as a fifth patent related to the H.264 video compression standard but was not subject to a FRAND commitment.   The jury awarded a reasonable royalty of $7.7 million for the single patent without a FRAND commitment, which was almost three times higher than the combined royalty awarded for the four FRAND-committed SEPs of $2.8 million.  But it is not clear at this point whether that difference is due to the FRAND-commitment or to the relative value of the patented technologies to the infringing products.

Prior to trial, the court also showed judicial restraint by limiting the case to determination of FRAND commitments on U.S. patents as a matter of U.S. law and not opining on FRAND commitments for foreign patents under foreign law.  For example, the court refused to enjoin a Chinese antitrust action based on alleged FRAND violations for related Chinese SEPs.  And the court refused to include in this case a determination of whether there was infringement of related foreign SEPs and whether licensing offers on those foreign SEPs complied with the FRAND commitment under foreign law.

The next steps in this case involves the court holding a bench trial (i.e., trial before the judge, not a jury) on whether PanOptis licensing offers complied with its FRAND commitments.  Further, the parties will file the usual post-trial motions that may challenge the jury verdict and ultimate bench trial ruling.  Those further filings may provide more insight into the case.  So stay tuned.
Continue Reading

Judge Andrews has entered an order allowing InterDigital and ZTE to proceed with FRAND and damages discovery, following last week’s jury verdict finding that ZTE’s accused handset devices infringe the patents asserted by InterDigital. As we previously mentioned, ZTE asserted a number of FRAND-related affirmative defenses and counterclaims in the litigation, all of which were

A California federal jury handed Apple a substantial victory over patent-plaintiff GPNE yesterday afternoon, finding Apple’s iPhone and iPad products do not infringe three GPNE patents alleged to be essential to GPRS and LTE standards. After less than one day of deliberations following a two-week trial, the jury issued a verdict form finding that none

Judge Richard Andrews of the District Court of Delaware dismissed Nokia and ZTE’s amended FRAND counterclaims against InterDigital on Wednesday, ruling that the amended declaratory judgment actions would not serve a useful purpose in the context of the parties’ ongoing litigation. Nokia and ZTE’s FRAND counterclaims involve around 500 patents identified to ETSI as possibly

With standard-essential-patent (SEP) damages discussions frequently focused on how to calculate a RAND rate, one can sometimes forget that not all SEPs are subject to [F]RAND obligations, which raises the issue whether and to what extent a reasonable royalty rate would be different between RAND and non-RAND encumbered patents. Last week, N.D. Cal. Judge Lucy

In the midst of ongoing litigation against Nokia and HTC abroad, German patent monetization firm IPCom’s claim of patent infringement against Apple will be heard before Germany’s Mannheim Regional Court next Tuesday, February 11 (see our Januray 2013 post for some additional information on how patent litigation and RAND issues are handled in Germany).  IPCom

Last week Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Gildea granted Adaptix’s motion to withdraw its Complaint and investigation of Ericsson’s alleged infringement of patents alleged to cover LTE standards used by Ericsson’s base stations (see our prior posts discussing Adaptix’s motion and Ericsson’s response).

ALJ Gildea’s ruling was short and succinct, noting–but not opining on–Ericsson’s assertion

Today Ericsson filed its response to Adaptix’s sudden motion to withdraw its Complaint and terminate the ITC’s investigation of whether Ericsson’s base stations infringe an Adaptix patent alleged to cover cellular LTE standards.  Recall from our post last week that it was not clear why Adaptix made this extraordinary step on the eve of trial.

The Court presiding over Wi-LAN’s patent infringement litigation against HTC and Exedea recently entered an order memorializing the court’s oral rulings on various pre-trial motions and disputes during a September 26, 2013 pre-trial hearing, including whether Wi-LAN’s alleged failure to offer a license on FRAND terms remained an issue in the case after defendants voluntarily

Ericsson is a company that holds a significant number of standard-essential patents, and often seeks to monetize and enforce them.  (They were just awarded infringement damages in Texas, and they’re engaged in an SEP duel with Samsung in the ITC and in Texas).  It wasn’t surprising, then, when Ericsson last week suggested a framework for