Japan: IP High Court Rules in Apple V Samsung FRAND Case
Published: 9/1/14Read More
14th
Jan,09
11th
Dec,08
Research In Motion Ltd. v. Motorola, Inc.
Published: 12/11/08 This decision denied a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s breach of contract and antitrust claims against Motorola based on the claim that Motorola refused to negotiate FRAND licenses in good faith. The court rejected Motorola’s claim that it lacks monopoly power based on its SEPs, holding that the [...]
16th
May,08
Competition policy v IP: striking a balance is a tricky exercise
Published: 8/5/16Publication: LexologyConceptually, intellectual property rights (IPRs) and competition law appear to be at odds: the former grants temporary monopolies and the latter protects and encourages market competition. This potentially difficult relationship has been increasingly at the heart of competition policy. As innovation becomes more important to economic success, there [...]
15th
Apr,08
An SEP licensing system with no rules has no future, says IEEE Standards Board executive
Published: 8/4/15Publication: IAMIn a wide-ranging interview, Konstantinos Karachalios, the managing director of the IEEE Standards Association (IEEE-SA), has explained why he feels the changes made earlier this year to the IEEE-SA’s patent policy, were essential to the future stability of licensing worldwide. Speaking to the IAM blog Karachalios insisted: “This [...]
15th
Mar,08
RAND Agreement Proving Powerful Limit on Patentee Action: Microsoft v. Motorola
Published: 8/3/15Publication: PatentlyOIn a well written decision, the 9th Circuit has affirmed the lower court ruling that Motorola/Google owes $14 million to Microsoft for failing to live-up to its RAND commitments. Although Motorola (now Google) committed several WiFi-essential patents to Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) licensing, it later demanded that Microsoft [...]
13th
Mar,08
Letter from Ambassador Michael Froman to ITC Chairman Irving Williamson
Published: 8/3/13The letter from USTR disapproved of, and thus overturned, the ITC’s decision in a section 337 case to issue (i) an exclusion order that would have prohibited the importation of Apple smartphones and tablets that allegedly infringed a FRAND-encumbered SEP patent owned by Samsung; and (ii) a cease and [...]
13th
Mar,08
Letter from Ambassador Michael Froman, USTR, to ITC Chairman Irving Williamson
Published: 8/3/13The letter from USTR disapproved of, and thus overturned, the ITC’s decision in a section 337 case to issue (i) an exclusion order that would have prohibited the importation of Apple smartphones and tablets that allegedly infringed a FRAND-encumbered SEP patent owned by Samsung; and (ii) a cease and [...]
16th
Jan,08
New Judicial Interpretation on Patent Infringement
Published: 8/1/16Publication: LexologyThe Supreme Court of China (SPC) has recently published a new judicial interpretation with regards to the applicability of relevant laws when patent infringement cases are handled, which took effect from April 1, 2016. It is a further development of SPC’s judicial interpretation on the trial of patent [...]
16th
Jan,08
Some Ericsson Patent Terms Made To TCL Deemed Fair
Published: 8/1/16Publication: Law360A California federal judge has ruled that some of the license terms Ericsson Inc. offered a Chinese mobile phone developer for standard-essential patents for wireless technology were fair and reasonable, narrowing the developer's claims in its suit alleging Ericsson overcharged it. [READ MORE]Read More
16th
Nov,07
The New German FRAND Case
Published: 7/11/16Publication: Comparative Patent Remedy,Read More