Published: 12/8/15Publication: WIPR Vague terms in the CJEU’s decision in Huawei v ZTE leave parties with little guidance on how to act when negotiating SEP licences, particularly from an alleged infringer’s perspective. Natalia Porto of Preiskel & Co reports. The Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) decision in Huawei [...]
Published: 12/8/14The High court of Delhi granted a temporary ex parte injunction in favor of Ericsson in a case involving FRAND-encumbered telephony SEPs. According to the court’s order, Ericsson had offered to license its SEPs to Xiaomi before Xiaomi launched its infringing devices in India. Published reports indicate that Xiaomi [...]
Published: 12/8/14The High court of Delhi granted a temporary ex parte injunction in favor of Ericsson in a case involving FRAND-encumbered telephony SEPs. According to the court’s order, Ericsson had offered to license its SEPs to Xiaomi before Xiaomi launched its infringing devices in India. Published reports indicate that Xiaomi [...]
Published: 12/7/16Publication: Lexology"At the end of last month, Commissioner Vestager gave a speech at the Chillin’ Competition Conference. The focus: how competition law can protect consumers from anti-competitive behaviours. The Commissioner gave examples of situations in which intervention could be justified, two of which are of particular interest in the [...]
Published: 12/7/15Publication: Patently-OIn Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir., Dec. 1, 2015), the Federal Circuit established important new guidelines for the calculation of “reasonable royalty” damages for standards-essential patents (SEPs), even in the absence of the patent holder’s commitment to license on reasonable and nondiscriminatory [...]
Published: 12/7/14Read More
Published: 7/11/12 As part of its statement, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission noted that “a SEP owner [has] the ability to demand and obtain royalty payments much higher than might have been available prior to adoption of the standard because these rates need not be based on the true market [...]
Published: 7/11/12In this testimony, the U.S. Justice Department’s Antitrust Division explains the potential for standardization to enable SEP holders to engage in patent hold-up, “such as by excluding a competitor from a market or obtaining an unjustifiably higher price for its invention than would have been possible before the standard [...]
Published: 6/22/12In this case, both Apple and Motorola sought damages and injunctive relief against the other party and both were denied relief (although Apple’s patents at issue were not SEPs). The trial court decision was rendered by Court of Appeals Judge and leading antitrust scholar Richard Posner. In rejecting Motorola’s [...]
Published: 12/6/16Publication: Mlex"The patent wars among global mobile phone makers are likely to intensify in India, and the Competition Commission of India, or CCI, will also look into anticompetitive conduct by patent holders, an adviser to the Indian government has said. Seema Gaur, an economic adviser at the Department of [...]