Search

In TCL v Ericsson a district court issued a second major US FRAND judgment endorsing the "top-down" methodology' and rejecting the "bottom-up" methodology for determining SEP royalties. The court also required substantially equal percentage-of-sales-price royalty payments for large and small competitors, and for upmarket and downmarket sellers alike, to satisfy FRAND's nondiscrimination requirement. The court's top-down approach may neutralise a trend among owners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In its 30 May 2017 decision in Impression Products Inc v Lexmark International Inc, the US Supreme Court reaffirmed the vitality of the exhaustion doctrine, as to both domestic and foreign sales of patented products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article, the third in a multipart series, describes and comments on the relief that the courts award in cases involving standard-essential patents (SEPs)—the law that courts have established on how to determine a reasonable royalty—in particular, a royalty on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms (RAND royalty) for a SEP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This column, the first in a multipart series, discusses the FTC's accusations of standardization skullduggery against Qualcomm. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Part 1 of this article discussed the historical development of the US exhaustion doctrine to the present. This Part 2 discusses a recent decision of the Federal Circuit that involves a complex licensing scheme with an unusual pattern that gives the scheme characteristics arguably bringing it into conflict with the exhaustion doctrine, on the one hand, but safely within the doctrine permitting the licensing of limited fields of use, on the other hand. The author suggests that the Federal Circuit's reasoning in reversing a grant of summary judgment against the scheme is not faithful to Supreme Court precedent, because it imposes an erroneous standing requirement on invoking the exhaustion doctrine and uses an unduly narrow standard to determine whether what is sold and what infringes the patent are sufficiently alike to trigger the exhaustion doctrine. Nonetheless, the court may have reached a correct result in the particular case: unresolved and unaddressed issues could be essential to determining the proper outcome, precluding summary judgment. In any event, for practical reasons, the Federal Circuit s new doctrine may greatly limit the future application of the exhaustion doctrine in several fields of new technology, particularly information technology. That may suggest a need to devise a new legal analysis to supplement the exhaustion doctrine. A form of equitable estoppel analysis, based on the underlying conceptions of the British Leyland case, is proposed to provide that supplement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ingenuity of patent lawyers tests the limits of two important doctrines governing the distribution of patented goods. A recent decision of the Federal Circuit involves a complex licensing scheme with an unusual pattern that gives the scheme characteristics arguably bringing it into conflict with the exhaustion doctrine, on the one hand, but safely within the doctrine permitting licensing of limited fields of use, on the other hand. The author suggests that the Federal Circuit's reasoning in reversing a lower court s grant of summary judgment is notfaithful to Supreme Court precedent, because it imposes an erroneous standing requirement on invoking the exhaustion doctrine and uses an unduly narrow standard to determine whether what is sold and what infringes the patent are sufficiently alike to trigger the exhaustion doctrine. Part 1 of this two-part article traces the development of the US exhaustion doctrine to the present. Part 2 will address the Federal Circuit's controversial judgment in this case, which may greatly limit the application of the exhaustion doctrine by providing a way to circumvent it; and then discusses a new legal analysis to supplement the exhaustion doctrine, based on equitable estoppel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This column discusses a recent Federal Circuit decision on determining royalties on patents embodied in a standard and subject to a reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) obligation. It also considers possible new approaches to standard-essential patents and standard setting. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This column, the first in a two-part series, looks at the recent Supreme Court case of Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd v. CLS Bank International to examine whether, and in what circumstances, patents can be issued on computer-related innovations and, more broadly, on business methods and software. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In this article, the author discusses the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on the patent eligibility on the case of Bilski v. Kappos regarding business methods of hedging commodity prices. He notes that the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court have not consider the importance of machine-or-transformation test in the patent-ineligibility of the case. The opinions of several justices are presented including Justice Kennedy, Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer.

The article provides information about a lawsuit between two chipset manufacturing companies regarding the patent essentials of Universal Mobile Telephone System (UMTS) standard. Broadcom Corp., a manufacturer of semiconductor chipsets for communications applications, has sued Qualcomm Inc., another chipset manufacturer and the owner of patents essential to complying with the standard. Broadcom charges that Qualcomm deceived the U.S. and international standard-setting organizations into incorporating Qualcomm's patented technology into the UMTS standard by making intentionally false representations that it would license its patents on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms. But once these organizations adopted a standard embodying Qualcomm's patented technology, Broadcom alleges, Qualcomm proceeded to demand unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory terms for patent licenses. The purpose, Broadcom says, was to give Qualcomm monopoly power over the sale of chipsets for mobile telephones conforming to the standard. The UMTS standard has come to dominate the mobile telephone market.

Presents information on an antitrust lawsuit filed by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against Rambus. Facts of the case; Details on the investigation on Rambus conducted by the U.S. Justice Department; Discussion on the defense of Rambus against the FTC.

Reports that a jury in Richmond, Virginia discovered that Rambus defrauded the Joint Electronic Devices Engineering Council (JEDEC) and the random access memory industry. Details on the patent infringement lawsuit filed by Rambus against Infineon; Why Rambus had no duty to disclose its pending patents; Details on the jury's verdict.

Part I. Deals with the Intel Corp.-Intergraph Computer Systems Inc. controversy on Wintel restraints on technology advances and refusals to deal based on intellectual property rights. Background of the Intel case; Possible legal theories that the district court had invoked; Information on similar decisions on the case.

Focuses on restraints in computer technology advances, referencing the United States government's cases against the Microsoft Corporation and the Intel Corporation. Description of the cases; Listing of other cases in which Microsoft and Intel used their positions in the industry to influence the growth of technology. INSET: Technology as a relevant market.

Deals with the shrink-wrap licenses on software publishing. How to agree to a shrink-wrap license; Advantages of shrink-wrap licenses to software publisher; Previous federal cases on this licensing; Why Matt Zeidenberg was accuse on ProCD case; Investigation of ProCD ruling.

The article discusses a series of court cases alleging deception in the adoption of the Joint Electronic Device Engineering Council (JEDEC) standard for synchronous dynamic random access memory (SDRAM) technology. The filing of a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) with regard to the case against Rambus is noted.

Presents an update on the infringement suits filed by Rambus concerning the Joint Electronic Devices Engineering Council standards on single-data-rate and double-data rate synchronous dynamic random access memory chips. Details on the fraud verdict faced by Infineon; Information on a case won by Rambus that allowed it for a judgment as a matter of law; Factor in assessing the propriety of a permanent injunction. INSET: Unocal charged with standards skullduggery.

Focuses on the lawsuit filed against Prodigy Communications Corp. by British Telecom PLC (BT) for infringing the patent on hyperlinks of BT. Background on the case; Discussion on laches; Details on the claims of the BT patent; How the accused infringer can invalidate a patent. INSET: Claim 1.

Details the case filed by Bristol Technology against Microsoft Corp. Charges against Microsoft; Importance of the application interfaces on Microsoft; Information on the district court ruling.

Part I. Provides information on the opinion handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals on the West Coast on the case of Les Kelly versus Arriba Soft. Reason for the lawsuit filed by Web site operator Les Kelly against Arriba Soft; Function of the fair-use doctrine; Provisions under the section 106(5) of the U.S. Copyright Act.

Comments on intellectual property infringement law, focusing on the case brought by six prominent content providers in the United States against Total News. Identification of these content providers; Outcome of the lawsuit; How underlying legal issues have been left unresolved.

Discusses whether the United States First Amendment and antitrust laws guarantee the right of marketers to provide junk e-mail by focusing on the Cyber Promotions Incorporated versus America Online (AOL) case. AOL's action on Cyber's junk e-mail which led to the filing of a court case; Cyber's argument on free speech rights and antitrust claims; Decision of the district court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. INSET: A new development..

This column is the conclusion to a two-part series on the recent Supreme Court case of Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd v. CLS Bank International and the question of whether patents can be issued on computer-related innovations and, more broadly, on business methods and software. This column describes the Supreme Court's Alice decision, the industry's reaction to the decision, and the apparent consequences for both software and business-method patents. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In February 2012, Apple sued Motorola to block the latter's alleged standardization skullduggery of the 3G/UMTS technology. This column examines the charges and explores the issues of patent rights; standards-essential patents; and what are fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms and conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses the decision of the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals to reverse the order of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the Rambus case. The Supreme Court refused to review the DC Court's judgment after the FTC sought for an appeal. Richard A. Feinstein, director of the Bureau of Competition, explained that they respect the decision of the Court of Appeals and stated that the standard-setting issues of the case are important in terms of antitrust policy and protecting consumers.