Implementers of standard essential patents (SEPs) continue to hold out in patent licensing discussions with SEP owners, including pursuing the cynical strategy of seeking anti-suit injunctions (ASIs). This failed strategy is...more
Innovators have long insisted that licensing discussions over standard essential patents (SEP) are one sided: implementers often “hold out” in bad faith by delaying discussions for as long as possible. The theory driving this...more
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently thwarted an attempt by big tech companies such as Apple, Cisco, Google, and Intel, to rid themselves of discretionary denials under the Fintiv factors. While these...more
Recent developments indicate that the UK is a favorable jurisdiction that owners of standard essential patents (“SEP”) can leverage to obtain appropriate SEP rates from what would otherwise be unwilling licensees. ...more
Patent owners searching for an appropriate venue for cases against alleged infringers may be able to point to the activity of an infringer’s agents, based on a new decision from the Eastern District of Texas. In recommending...more
On Monday, the Supreme Court denied TCL Communication’s certiorari petition, without comment, appealing the Federal Circuit’s ruling that the essentiality of a patent claim is a question for the jury rather than judges to...more
Last Thursday, September 10, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division (“DOJ”) issued an updated Business Review Letter (“2020 Letter”) to the Institute of Electrical Electronics Engineers, Incorporated...more
Implementer Hold Out -
Another major development in global standard essential patent litigation was handed down today, as the UK Supreme Court upheld lower court rulings that forced an efficient infringer of essential...more
8/27/2020
/ ETSI ,
FRAND ,
Germany ,
Huawei ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Standard Essential Patents ,
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) ,
UK ,
UK Supreme Court
The Federal Circuit yesterday, in a decision likely to be celebrated by holders of standard essential patents (“SEPs”), found that it is appropriate for the jury to decide essentiality of a patent, rather than the judge...more
Entities with patent-related relationships with state universities scored a victory under the rarely implicated (at least for patent practitioners) doctrine of sovereign immunity. For patent holders, sovereign immunity comes...more
7/29/2020
/ Eleventh Amendment ,
En Banc Review ,
Federal Rule 12(b)(1) ,
FRCP 19(a) ,
IP License ,
Joinder ,
License Agreements ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Sovereign Immunity ,
State Universities
Recent oral arguments at the Fed Circuit suggest that the U.S. may be taking steps which would enhance its attractiveness for SEP patent holders looking to resolve licensing disputes. The Federal Circuit heard oral argument...more
A recent Memorandum Order from the District of Delaware edified the protections courts tend to give discovery concerning litigation funding. Because Defendant AT&T failed to carry its burden of demonstrating the specific...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently sent a warning to alleged infringers not to wait for the one year deadline to file IPR petitions, or risk discretionary denial. On May 13, 2020, the PTAB exercised its...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit, in a precedential decision, reinforced that an accused infringer can be a “prevailing party” for the purposes of seeking attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 when it successfully invalidates...more
In an April 13, 2020, decision, the Federal Circuit held that neither a voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), nor a stay of a patent lawsuit pending the results of a patent reexamination,...more
In a February 19, 2020 decision the Federal Circuit held that a patentee does not escape 35 U.S.C. § 287’s marking requirement merely by ceasing sales of the practicing product. Instead, the Federal Circuit held that once a...more
On Friday, the PTAB’s Precedential Opinion Panel, colloquially referred to as “the POP,” ruled that the one-year window to file inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions begins once a complaint alleging infringement is...more
This week, the Supreme Court left open the question of Article III standing with regards to appealing a final written decision from the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) that is favorable to the patent owner. On...more
6/20/2019
/ America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Article III ,
Denial of Certiorari ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS
Services play a large role in today’s economy, and it is important to be mindful of how certain pitfalls that apply to product-based intellectual property rights also apply to method or process-based intellectual property...more
A recent order from the District of Delaware in Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 15-00542 (“Evolved Wireless”) provides interesting guidance regarding the use of future sales in calculating lump-sum damages. This...more
4/1/2019
/ Admissibility ,
Calculation of Damages ,
Cross Examination ,
Damages ,
Evidence ,
Jury Instructions ,
Lump Sum Payments ,
Patent Assertion Entities ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Royalties ,
Patents
A recent order from the Northern District of California in AU Optronics Corporation America v. Vista Peak Ventures, LLC, 4:18-cv-04638 (CAND 2019-02-19) (“AU Optronics”), provides further guidance for patent venue analysis...more
Recently, in ZTE (USA) Inc. v. Fundamental Innovation Int’l LLC, IPR2018-00425, Paper No. 34 (Feb. 6, 2019), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) allowed Petitioner’s motion to retroactively correct its defective IPR...more
In an Initial Determination finding that Fujifilm violated Section 337 by infringing two patents held by Sony, ALJ Cheney found another patent invalid after ruling that inter partes review (“IPR”) estoppel does not apply to...more
Last week the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) provided yet another arrow in the patent owner’s quiver for defending against institution of IPRs. In NHK International Corp. v. Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc.,...more
Last week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) denied a second challenge to a patent where the petitioners were co-respondents in an ITC investigation. In Shenzhen Silver Star Intelligent Tech. Co., Ltd. v....more