This afternoon the RAND breach of contract case between Microsoft and Motorola went to the jury, and this evening — after just a few short hours of deliberation — the jury came back with its verdict. According to Curtis Cartier (@curtis_cartier on Twitter), a freelance journalist who attended the trial, the jury found
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
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
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.
Microsoft and Motorola are currently hurtling toward an August 26 jury trial in their RAND breach of contract dispute in Seattle. But it looks like the SEP disputes between the parties are not limited to the United States, however. In a letter filed with Judge James L. Robart’s court yesterday, Microsoft claims that it was
Back in June, we alerted you to a jury verdict handed down in a patent case in the Eastern District of Texas, where the jury awarded Ericsson several million dollars as compensation for infringement of several of its 802.11-essential patents by several manufacturers of WiFi-compliant products and components. At the time, we noted that the jury only addressed issue of validity, infringement, and damages, with SEP-specific issues being potentially left for presiding Judge Leonard Davis to decide. (In fact, the court held a bench trial on RAND issues on June 12). The parties filed post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law on several issues, and yesterday, Judge Davis issued a lengthy Memorandum Opinion and Order broadly upholding the jury’s verdict.
[13.08.06 (Dkt 615) Ericsson v. D-Link Order on Post-Trial Motions]
As we suspected, some RAND obligation-related issues reared their heads — but Judge Davis rejected the defendants’ RAND-based arguments and defenses. In doing so, he made some statements that might be construed as a marked departure from the route taken by Judge Robart in the Microsoft-Motorola case. After the jump, we’ll take a look at what Judge Davis concluded with respect to Ericsson’s RAND obligations.Continue Reading Rebutting Judge Robart? E.D. Tex. Judge Leonard Davis upholds jury damages award on WiFi SEPs, dismisses RAND-related issues (Ericsson v. D-Link)
The world of standard-essential patent litigation has seen some significant upheaval over the past few months, particularly with the Microsoft-Motorola RAND-setting ruling and the ITC’s exclusion order in Samsung-Apple (and the USTR’s subsequent veto). Today there will be a complimentary webinar in conjunction with the American Intellectual Property Law Association’s (AIPLA) Standards & Open
The sprawling patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois involving Innovatio IP Ventures is often in the headlines not because it involves standard-essential patents, but because it involves (in part) patent infringement claims brought by a non-practicing entity (Innovatio) against “end users” (coffee shops, hotels, restaurants, etc.). But last Friday, Judge James F. Holderman issued a ruling that may be the first of its kind for a district court — a ruling addressing the “essentiality” of patent claims, separate and apart from the issue of infringement. If you’re not familiar with this case (and even if you are), bear with us — we’ll try to explain just why this ruling is so “essential” (sorry).
[2013.07.26 (Dkt 851) Order re Essentiality]
Warning — this is going to be a long post.Continue Reading Judge issues “essential” first-of-its-kind ruling, finding all of Innovatio’s WiFi-related patent claims to be 802.11-essential (and subject to RAND obligations)
Yesterday, Administrative Law Judge David P. Shaw issued a Notice of Initial Determination in In the Matter of Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing Same (No. 337-TA-837), an ITC Section 337 investigation based on an infringement complaint brought by LSI and Agere against Funai, Realtek, and Mediatek (who had previously settled out of the case).