Last week, following a bench trial in CSIRO v. Cisco,  Judge Davis in E.D. Texas determined a reasonable royalty damages award for a CSIRO patent stipulated to be valid, infringed and essential to several versions of the IEEE 802.11 WiFi standard where a RAND-obligation applied to one version of the standard, but not others. 

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

Because so many SEP-related issues have arisen over the past year, we will periodically revisit some of the more important episodes with a brief post.  Judge Richard Posner’s June 22, 2012 ruling in the Apple v. Motorola patent infringement litigation in the Northern District of Illinois, and the subsequent appeal to the Federal Circuit fall into this category.

Even people who don’t routinely follow the smartphone patent wars likely are aware of the patent dispute between Motorola and Apple.  After prior license negotiations failed, the parties filed dueling patent infringement lawsuits in October 2010.  Some of these infringement actions were consolidated in a case before Judge Posner, who sat by designation at the district court.  A jury trial was scheduled for June 2012: Apple asserted Motorola infringed claims of four non-standard-essential patents, while Motorola asserted Apple infringed claims of one patent that was essential to the Universal Mobile Telecommunications Standard (UMTS, a 3G cellular standard).  But as the trial date approached, Judge Posner excluded all of the parties’ respective expert testimony on damages.  Finding that neither party could prove an entitlement to damages, Judge Posner tentatively canceled the jury trial, finding that it would make little sense to hold a jury trial on infringement liability if a party could not receive relief.  However, he allowed the parties to submit further briefing, including relating to the potential for equitable remedies such as injunctive relief.  Because Motorola asserted an SEP that was encumbered by a FRAND licensing commitment, Judge Posner specifically requested that Motorola address the bearing of FRAND on the injunction analysis.Continue Reading Catching up on … Apple v. Motorola (N.D. Ill./Fed. Cir.)