Yesterday we covered InterDigital’s opposition to Huawei, Nokia, and ZTE’s efforts to stay the ITC’s investigation into InterDigital’s latest Section 337 complaint pending a potential FRAND determination in the District of Delaware. We also noted that the other respondent, Samsung, did not join the motion but stated that it did not oppose such a stay. The ITC Investigative Staff from the Office on Unfair Important Investigations (a third party that participates in many ITC investigations as a representative of the public interest) also filed its own response to the motion yesterday. The Staff opposes the motion to stay for a variety of reasons, which we will get into below.
Continue Reading ITC Staff opposes motion to stay pending FRAND determination in InterDigital Section 337 investigation (337-TA-868)
InterDigital opposes Huawei/Nokia/ZTE’s efforts to stay ITC investigation, saying motion is “based on speculation upon speculation”
Yesterday, InterDigital filed its opposition to Huawei & ZTE’s motion (later joined by another respondent, Nokia) to stay Inv. No. 337-TA-868, which is the ITC’s investigation into InterDigital’s 3G/4G standard-essential patent infringement-based Section 337 complaint. Much as it did in its prior opposition to Huawei/ZTE’s attempts to seek an expedited FRAND determination in Delaware district court, InterDigital here claims that nothing in the motion to stay counsels staying the investigation pending a determination of FRAND terms in Delaware — in fact, InterDigital attached its opposition to expedite the Delaware proceedings as an exhibit to its ITC stay opposition. After the jump, we’ll provide a brief summary of InterDigital’s arguments against staying the ITC case.
InterDigital wasn’t the only one filing papers in this case yesterday, though — Samsung also filed a response to the motion to stay. Samsung’s position is, succinctly, that “[w]hile Samsung does not join the Motion, Samsung does not oppose the requested stay.” (You may recall that Samsung has its own motion to terminate some of InterDigital’s infringement claims pending in this case).Continue Reading InterDigital opposes Huawei/Nokia/ZTE’s efforts to stay ITC investigation, saying motion is “based on speculation upon speculation”
Huawei, ZTE seek stay of InterDigital 3G/4G ITC investigation
On Friday we posted about the Answers filed by the respondents in In the Matter Certain Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-868) — the case better known as InterDigital’s ITC action against Huawei, Nokia, Samsung, and ZTE. And we’ve previously discussed how Huawei and ZTE are currently seeking an expedited determination of FRAND terms in Delaware district court, where they also expalined that they would seek to stay the ITC action. Today, Huawei and ZTE’s motion to stay the ITC investigation hit the docket (it was actually filed on Friday). Huawei and ZTE seek to halt the ITC investigation pending (1) the outcome of Inv. No. 337-TA-800 (involving the same parties and some of the same patents); and (2) a determination in Delaware of the terms of a FRAND license to InterDigital’s patents.
Continue Reading Huawei, ZTE seek stay of InterDigital 3G/4G ITC investigation
Huawei/Samsung/ZTE answer InterDigital’s ITC complaint, assert FRAND-related defenses
Lately, there’s been a lot of activity in InterDigital-related cases, both in district courts and the ITC. Aside from the hearing in Inv. No. 337-TA-800 (scheduled to wrap up today), the respondents named in InterDigital’s latest complaint (Inv. No. 337-TA-868) — Huawei, Nokia, Samsung, and ZTE — filed their answers yesterday. Given InterDigital’s assertion of 3G/4G cellular standard-essential patents here, it comes as no surprise to see that in addition to customary patent infringement defenses, the respondents have asserted several FRAND-specific defenses. Below is a quick rundown of the FRAND-specific defenses asserted by the individual respondents.
Continue Reading Huawei/Samsung/ZTE answer InterDigital’s ITC complaint, assert FRAND-related defenses
Huawei, ZTE seek expedited FRAND determinations in InterDigital 3G/4G standard-essential patent dispute
In early January, InterDigital filed a Section 337 complaint in the U.S. International Trade Commission against Huawei, Nokia, Samsung, and ZTE, accusing those companies’ 3G/4G-compliant smartphones and tablets of infringing several InterDigital patents (this is now ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-868). Because the ITC cannot award monetary relief, it’s common for complainants to also file corresponding infringement actions in district court, which InterDigital did here in the District of Delaware. In order to relieve ITC respondents from the burden of litigating in multiple venues simultaneously, 28 U.S.C. § 1659 allows respondents to seek a mandatory stay of the district court action pending the outcome of the ITC case. Generally, respondents seek such a stay. But here, neither Huawei nor ZTE have sought a stay — in fact, they have asked the Delaware district court to expedite discovery on FRAND issues. It’s an interesting strategic move in which they leverage recent guidance from government agencies and other pending litigation, and it’s a strategy that (if successful) may be followed by many more ITC respondents in the future.
Continue Reading Huawei, ZTE seek expedited FRAND determinations in InterDigital 3G/4G standard-essential patent dispute
InterDigital, Nokia ordered to produced FRAND-related and licensing documents in ITC case (337-TA-800)
As we noted earlier this week, the ITC is currently holding the evidentiary hearing in its investigation surrounding InterDigital’s 3G standard-essential patent infringement complaint against Nokia, Huawei, and ZTE (Inv. No. 337-TA-800). As with many ITC hearings, much of the information is kept out of the public record (and that’s particularly true for FRAND-related issues, where sensitive licensing data is often discussed). But today, the ITC just released the public version of Order No. 70, the confidential version of which originally issued way back in September 2012. In this order, ALJ David P. Shaw ordered InterDigital and Nokia to both produce various information relating to the FRAND affirmative defenses raised by Nokia in the case, including license agreements, license negotiation documents, and other documents relating to FRAND.
Continue Reading InterDigital, Nokia ordered to produced FRAND-related and licensing documents in ITC case (337-TA-800)
ITC begins evidentiary hearing on InterDigital’s 3G standard-essential patent infringement complaint against Huawei, Nokia, ZTE (337-TA-800)
This morning, at the U.S. International Trade Commission, the hearing commenced in In the Matter of Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-800) before presiding Administrative Law Judge David. P. Shaw. This case involves the ITC’s investigation into allegations brought by InterDigital that respondents Huawei, Nokia, and ZTE
Target dates set for Samsung-Ericsson, InterDigital ITC Section 337 SEP investigations
The statute that governs the U.S. International Trade Commission’s jurisdiction over patent infringement complaints requires the ITC to resolve its investigations into such complaints “at the earliest practicable time” Typically, ITC investigations will take anywhere from 12-18 months (depending on complexity, number of patents, etc.) from the institution of the investigation until the “target date,”
A rundown of pending SEP-related Section 337 investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission
The United States International Trade Commission (ITC) is a quasi-judicial agency with broad investigative powers relating to trade practices. These powers include the ability to investigate unfair trade practices relating to the importation of products that infringe valid U.S. patents — so-called “Section 337 actions” (Section 337 actions can encompass other conduct, but are commonly used to target patent infringement). But because the ITC may only issue injunctive relief (via exclusion orders and cease & desist orders), and cannot award monetary damages, the assertion of standard-essential patents in Section 337 actions has become a subject of great debate. Within about a month, the Commission will issue a Final Determination in Investigation No. 337-TA-794 (involving Samsung and Apple) that may address the propriety of asserting FRAND-pledged SEPs in Section 337 actions. In the meantime, however, there are several ongoing ITC investigations where standard-essential patents are being asserted. Below is a brief summary of where each of these cases currently stand:
Continue Reading A rundown of pending SEP-related Section 337 investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission
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