ForestJudge Robart’s RAND decision in the Microsoft v. Motorola case is receiving well-warranted attention, and for good reason.  Of course, we here at the Essential Patent Blog find this developing area of law fascinating.  So I welcomed Tom Keene’s invitation to discuss Judge Robart’s decision live on Bloomberg TV’s “Bloomberg Surveillance” program this past Monday, April 29.  The focus was to be on the particular question of whether Google’s purchase of Motorola has panned out, given recent Motorola patent litigation losses.  So I prepared through immersive study of Judge Robart’s decision, as well as our prior postings and the details of the various Motorola cases in the so-called Smartphone Wars.  Forget the forest or the trees — I stared at every branch, twig and leaf.

And Monday morning, in a remote studio in Washington, DC, Tom Keene’s voice from New York came into the earpiece asking an important question I never expected: What about the forest? Continue Reading The Patent Forest

  • 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, O’Connor argues that when it comes to dealing with patent issues in the high-technology arena, standard-essential patent issues are just a small part of a larger puzzle.

  • In other standard-essential patent news, a group of economists from the Competition Policy Institute recently published a paper calling for greater clarity in standard-setting organization patent and licensing policies.  More from Law360.
  • This past Friday, Judge Lucy Koh issued an order vacating nearly half of the $1.05B verdict that a Northern District of California jury had awarded to Apple for Samsung’s infringement of various Apple intellectual property.  Because the jury had based its damages figures for some of the Samsung products on improper legal theories or incorrect notice dates, Judge Koh ordered a new trial for damages on these products.  More on Judge Koh’s ruling from Groklaw and AllThingsD.
  • Lastly, you can’t get away from sequestration talk — not even here.  Dennis Crouch at Patently-O takes a look at how the sequester will affect the USPTO and the Federal Circuit.
  • 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 the ITC announced that it is has instituted a Section 337 investigation based on Interdigital’s complaint filed against Samsung, Huawei, Nokia, and ZTE, in which Interdigital alleged that those parties infringe several 3G/4G standard-essential patents.  The investigation will be No. 337-TA-868, and the presiding Administrative Law Judge will be ALJ Robert K. Rogers.  As we suspected, the ITC did not find the assertion of standard-essential patents precluded instituting an investigation (despite many arguments to the contrary).
  • Professor Damien Gerardin has released a new paper addressing the competition law issues that have arisen in Europe relating to licensing and assertion of standard-essential patents in litigation. (via Antitrust Hotch Potch).
  • On the smartphone wars front, Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California overruled the jury’s conclusion that Samsung willfully infringed Apple’s patents and declined to award Apple damages above and beyond the $1 billion+ jury award.  Judge Koh still has yet to rule on Samsung’s request to reduce the jury’s award.  More from ArsTechnica and CNET.
  • And in shameless plug news, David Long and Matt Rizzolo wrote a short piece for AllThingsD on the implications that the Federal Circuit’s remedy-narrowing decisions in Laserdynamics v. Quanta and Apple v. Samsung may have for future patent litigation. (AllThingsD).