Navigate Up
Sign In

Documents and Links Submitted by Committee Members for Posting

Discussed on 8/29/17 Committee Conference Call:
Evolved Wireless v. Apple, et al. (D. Del.), Memorandum Order:
https://www.delawareiplaw.com/files/2017/08/Evolved-Wireless-LLC-v.-Apple-Inc.-No.-15-542-SLR-SRF.pdf

Discussed on 8/29/17 Committee Conference Call:
Haier America Trading, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Col, LTD, et al. (N.D. NY), Complaint:
Haier America v Samsung NDNY.PDFHaier America v Samsung NDNY.PDF


Presentation by Dr. Peter Koch on Confidentiality at Trial in Germany on 7/25/17
Committee Conference Call:
AIPLA_Confidential Information in DE-trial_20170725.pdfAIPLA_Confidential Information in DE-trial_20170725.pdf

Discussed on 4/18/16 Committee Conference Call:
Saint Lawrence Judgment 31 March 2016 (
Germany):
Saint Lawrence Judgment 31 March 2016 English excerpt.pdfSaint Lawrence Judgment 31 March 2016 English excerpt.pdf
(keep in mind that this is a translation)

Summary of New Delhi Decision:
L and S_IP_Update_3_2016.pdfL and S_IP_Update_3_2016.pdf

SEC case:
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Billing, No. 05-1157.pdfCredit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Billing, No. 05-1157.pdf

1/21/16 FRAND developments by JFTC
From Aki Ryuka
 
9/23/15 Information on SD3 v. Saw-Stop, 2015 WL 5334119 (4th Cir. 9/15/15)
From Richard Wolfram:
Most interesting both in reversing (and reinstating) the Sect. 1 concerted refusal to deal and in upholding the dismissal of the Sect. 1 claim re abuse of standard setting process; the latter is more relevant for our group. 
 
Oversimplified, it comes down to a legal presumption of procompetitive efficiencies and benefits of standard setting, which plaintiffs can overcome only first of all by showing some procedural defect in or abuse of the standard setting process undertaken by the defendants.  Here the court was unwilling to impute to that process the alleged conspiratorial conduct and motives of the same defendants regarding their conduct outside the standard setting process, vis a vis the plaintiff.  In other words, what sufficed under Twombly for a Section 1 boycott claim did not suffice for a Section 1 abuse of standard setting claim, where the relevant allegations were not, as with the boycott claim, a meeting among the defendants and an abrupt halt in licensing negotiations with the plaintiff, but instead only what happened within the standard setting process -- and the plaintiff had little if anything on that.  In this regard, the opinion is most instructive, as it carefully delineates the kind of conduct in standard setting that might cross the line under Sect. 1 and at the same time 'cabins' what does not, even in the instance where related conduct by the defendants outside the standard setting process might state a claim for illegal boycott under Sect. 1.  This is the first time I've seen such a juxtaposition and contrast, and it's useful.
 
On top of that, the back-and-forth between the concurrence and the dissent (J. Harvey Wilkinson) as to the boycott claim is quite sparky -- most entertaining.  Wilkinson really gets his comeuppance when his colleague, the concurring judge, says Wilkinson is engaging in 'breathtaking judicial activism'.
 
7/17/15 FRAND developments by JFTC
From Aki Ryuka for 8/10/15 committee meeting presentation
 
11/24/14 Summary of Court of Justice of the European Union, Advocate General's Opinion in Huawei v. ZTE
From Robert Harrison with this comment:
Here’s my summary which I trust is understandable. I’ve tried to give a bit of background to the procedure for those not familiar with EU law.
 
11/20/14 Link to Court of Justice of the European Union, Advocate General's Opinion in Huawei v. ZTE
From Robert Harrison with this comment:
The Advocate General has issued his opinion on the pending case in front of the Court of Justice of the European Union in which Huawei is suing ZTE for access to a licence to an SEP. This is only the opinion of the Advocate General - the main court can follow this opinion or set it aside. It is rare, however, that the opinion is set outside.
 
11/20/14 Link to Infomation on European Commission's Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry Questionnaire on Patents and Standards 
 
8/5/14 CSIRO v. Cisco Decision
 
 
4/14/14 Link to Vringo v. ZTE 17-Dec-2013 Judgment by the Regional Court Mannheim 2nd Civil Division (English translation)
  
12/2/13 Information provided during Committee call by Andy Updegrove on the Innovation Act (HR 3309):
Here is the language we are discussing from Section 3 of the proposed Innovation Act (HR 3309) https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr3309 which reads as follows:
(a) Pleading requirements
Except as provided in subsection (b), in a civil action in which a
party asserts a claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress
relating to patents, a party alleging infringement shall include in
the initial complaint, counterclaim, or cross-claim for patent
infringement, unless the information is not reasonably accessible to
such party, the following:
……
(10)  For each patent identified under paragraph (1), whether such
patent has been specifically declared as essential, potentially
essential, or having potential to become essential to any
standard-setting body, and whether the United States Government or a
foreign government has imposed specific licensing requirements with
respect to such patent.
 
12/2/13 Link to Samsung's Commitments Offered to the European Commission, dated 27 September 2013,  Case COMP/C-3/39.939 - Samsung Electronics, Enforcement of UMTS Standard Essential Patents
 
11/4/13 Case discussed by Sandy Block
Lotes Co., Ltd. v. Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., et al., Opinion and Order (May, 14, 2013 S.D.N.Y.)
  
11/4/13 Case discussed by Sandy Block
Ericsson Inc., et al. v.  D-Link Systems, Inc., et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order (Aug. 6, 2013 E.D. Tex.)
 
9/23/13 From David Long (6/28/13 ITC Initial Determination and Notice in InterDigital v. Huawei, et. al, 337-TA-800):
Note that the initial decision is 448 pages long, but the SEP issues fall only within pages 417 to 440.
 
7/8/13 From Sandy Block (7/5/13 ITC Opinion in Samsung v. Apple, 337-TA-794):
The Opinion is quite lengthy and describes a host of issues. Section III(a)(4) and Section III(F) and the dissent, along with a summary of public comments of various questions from numerous parties may be of particular interest.  
 
5/23/13 From Richard Wolfram:
Public Comment Richard Wolfram sent to the DOJ and FTC in response to their request for Public Comments following the hearing on patent assertion entities.
 

11/20/12 From Michael Stein:

The FTC did a report on anti-competitive effects of patents last year:  http://www.ftc.gov/os/2011/03/110307patentreport.pdf

The FTC announced a workshop on the issue 11/19/12:  http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/11/paeworkshop.shtm

 

 

4/3/12 From Richard Wolfram:
[I]nformation about the EC investigations (announced today) of Motorola Mobility, focusing on its use of injunctions regarding standards essential patents.

 

Standard Setting -- Google-Motorola Mobility ABA webinar - EC non-opposition.pdfStandard Setting -- Google-Motorola Mobility ABA webinar - EC non-opposition.pdf 

On a related note, and on behalf of fellow committe members Jorge Contreras and Andy Updegrove and myself, members of our committee are welcome to listen to a webinar put on last week (3/27) by that other bar association concerning FRAND, the Google-Motorola Mobility acquisition and the Microsoft-Apple-RIM/Nortel  and Apple/Novell IP portfolio acquisitions -- "Three Faces of FRAND:  The Evolving Understanding of Standards Essential Patents," co-sponsored by the ABA Science & Technology and IP Sections.
 
Here's the link for (free) audio streaming, accessible for the next 45 days or so: 
http://apps.americanbar.org/cle/programs/nosearch/tfffmo.html.
 
Jorge moderated the webinar and Andy and I were on the panel, joined by John Harkrider, outside counsel to Google on the acqusition, and Fabian Gonell of Qualcomm.  Our panel also discussed the use of injunctions with respect to SEPs. 
 
The three IP acquisitions, SEPs and the strategic use of patents were the subjects of at least three sessions and significant interest at last week's ABA Antitrust Section Spring Meeting.

The DOJ (five-page) statement announcing the closing of its review of the three acquisitions is here: http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2012/280190.htm.  The EC's (37-page) statement of non-opposition to the Google-Motorola Mobility deal, the only one of the three acquisitions that it reviewed, is attached [above].

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Link to ETSI's presentation on Standards in the Cloud, to be held Sept 28-29, 2011: http://www.etsi.org/WebSite/NewsandEvents/2011_09_STANDARDSINTHECLOUD.aspx

FTC 3/11 Report on Patents: The Evolving IP Marketplace - Aligning Patent Notice & Remedies with Competition

Open Source License Selection Paper - Paul Roberts.docxOpen Source License Selection Paper - Paul Roberts.docx

United States: Technology Standardisation And Antitrust Law - A Comparison Of The US And EU Approaches 

Info regarding Netherlands judgment of interest - Dutch Sony seizure dispute: a case for New Amsterdam

HDTV Standards Case 4/29/11:

 

    • Zenith suing Sony over alleging that high-definition televisions infringe two patents that implement the Advanced Television Systems Committee standard
    • Zenith’s innovations related to HDTV are protected by a valuable portfolio of patents that are the subject of over 100 licenses with industry participants (Complaint, Para 9)
    • Sony was previously licensed to certain Zenith patents, but license has expired and sales of HDTVs have continued (Complaint, Para 10)
    • "Zenith has contacted and attempted to negotiate a reasonable and non-discriminatory license with Sony; however, Sony has been unwilling to take a license to Zenith’s patents"  (Complaint, Para 10)

 

Zenith v  Sony Complaint.pdfZenith v Sony Complaint.pdf 

  •  
    Wireless IEEE 802.11n Standards Case, filed 5/6/11:
    • Linex Technologies Inc. accused HP, Apple, Aruba Networks, Meru Networks, and Ruckus Wireless of infringing two wireless communications patents in Delaware federal court and the ITC
    • Complaint alleges that that the action for patent infringement involves "products, methods, processes, services, and/or systems that operate using certain wireless communication methods, which infringe the Asserted Patents and which are used in wireless communications standards in the United States, such as IEEE 802.11n..." (Para 2)
    • Complaint alleges "Defendants’ infringing products include wireless communication products that operate in a "multiple input, multiple output" ("MIMO") mode over a wireless local area network, as defined in the IEEE 802.11n standard" (Para 17. See also Para 25, 29

Linex v. HP and Apple Complaint 5-6-11.pdfLinex v. HP and Apple Complaint 5-6-11.pdf

 

FTC to host Workshop on Standard-Setting Issues on June 21, 2011

 

AIPLA Antitrust News, May 2011 (includes article on FTC Issues Report on the Evolving Intellectual Property Marketplace

 AIPLA Antitrust News May 2011.docxAIPLA Antitrust News May 2011.docx

 

Two Rambus rulings, May 13, 2011

Hynix v. Rambus Fed Cir 5-13-11.pdfHynix v. Rambus Fed Cir 5-13-11.pdfMicron v. Rambus Fed Cir 5-13-11.pdfMicron v. Rambus Fed Cir 5-13-11.pdf

 

EU Standardization Report (click here the EU Standardization Report, dated June 1, 2011)

Trueposition - Order dismissing cmplnt w leave to amend - Jan 2012.pdfTrueposition - Order dismissing cmplnt w leave to amend - Jan 2012.pdf