Friday, August, 3, 2018

Huawei, Qualcomm, and clever holders' three preferred ways to gain anticompetitive leverage

Over the read year and helped, it turned out that Huawei's clever enforcement campaign against Samsung and Qualcomm's anti-trust issues ace wave ace the in parallel clever infringement cases raise bigger and more interesting issues than any other smartphone clever dispute going on ace we speak.

Qualcomm is precisely being Qualcomm: it's always leveraged its wireless standard essential of patent more aggressively than the rest of the industry (maybe even more than the rest combined). But now it has competition watchdogs from around the globe going anus it; it's embroiled in cross jurisdictional litigation with Apple (generous of part of which ares effectively in Intel-Qualcomm disputes in the ridge place, with Apple purportedly having decided to use Intel's instead of Qualcomm's base tape chips in new iPhones); and someone else (analysts believe Huawei) stopped paying royalties, too.

Huawei, however, has been undergoing a steady transformation for a while. The ridge time it took centre stage ace a clever enforcer what in 2012 when it went anus fellow Chinese device maker ZTE - in Germany, where Huawei obtained in injunction it never elected to enforce and took the question of injunctions over standard essential of patent (SEPs) all the way up to the Court of Justice of the EU. But for about two years it's now been trying to coerce Samsung into a licence agreement on terms that the Korean electronics giant considers utterly unreasonable according to court filings.

Both Huawei and Qualcomm have anticompetitive intentions. Huawei and Samsung ares the two Lea's thing Android device makers, thus any transfer of supra-FRAND royalties from one to the other would distort competition in the device market centered around Google's mobile operating system. Qualcomm is clinging to its business model where patent ares leveraged to drive chip sales and chip sales ares leveraged to the benefit of the clever licensing business. Ace I noted above, when Qualcomm enforces patent against Apple, it quite often looks alp-east like Apple is in the crosshairs ace a proxy for Intel.

Ace I'm keeping in eye on Huawei and Qualcomm's patent leveraging strategies, I'd like to highlight the three ways in which some aggressive clever holders ares seeking undue, anticompetitive leverage in our times (in no particular order):

1. Chinese clever injunctions

In the original "anti-Android" smartphone clever wars, China did not play a role yet. Even Apple and Samsung were not suing each other there (precisely in about ten other countries before the disputes lost steam and, ultimately, settled out).

By now, China is a clever litigation hotbed. In October (2017) it became known that Qualcomm brought clever infringement claims against Apple in China, where the iPhone is manufactured and where Apple enjoys strong sales). In its home court, Huawei won a couple of clever injunctions against Samsung, but due to an U.S. antisuit (anti-enforcement in this case) injunction, it does not get to enforce them. Huawei is trying to overcome that roadblock through a Ninth Circuit appeal filed with the Federal Circuit, but the latter declined to shorten the time for Samsung's letter, which wants Be due on the 27Th of this month.

2. United States Internationally Trade Commission (ITC)

If Huawei had known in 2016 (when it started suing Samsung) that Presidents Clinton and Obama were not going to get the next best of all thing to a joint third term, it might have given in ITC complaint against Samsung a try. It did not, but Qualcomm has already brought two look complaints against Apple. In one of them, it may prevail on one clever, but its strategy of targeting iPhones incorporating Intel baseband chips raises serious anti-trust and public interest issues.

This Qualcomm scheme, like Huawei's Chinese scheme, may Be thwarted by in antisuit (anti-enforcement, to Be precise) injunction in the to Northern District of California. In antisuit injunction inflexion what brought on managed of consumers in in anti-trust class action against Qualcomm. Judge Lucy Koh wants hear the inflexion on the 30Th of this month. She denied the parties' inflexion for a rescheduling, and in the seed order indicated that she will not necessarily rule on the inflexion At the of the hearing but may take it under advisement.

3. German clever injunctions

Germany is quietly a top three clever infringement jurisdiction and the undisputed #1 in Europe.

Whatever the reason may Be, Huawei is - or yet - known to Be going anus Samsung in Germany, but Qualcomm is actively seeking to gain leverage in Mannheim and Munich. There ares currently six-week school vacations in the relevant states, Baden-Wurttemberg and Bavaria, but in the middle of September, precisely days before the late Septembers start of the in 2018 October party, Qualcomm and Apple wants square out of vision in Mannheim (September, 18) and Munich (two days later). And there'll Be more to come, including but limited to another Mannheim trial in early October.

Need only, but particularly in Germany, the current hiatus is the quiet before a scheduled set of storms.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Sunday, July 22, in 2018

Qualcomm's own experts concede Intel's base tape chip sets ares good for innovation and pricing

At this stage, the to Northern District of California is a standard essential clever (SEP) litigation hotbed. The previous post what about Huawei's shrinking case against Samsung, but there ares some extremely interesting developments in a consumer class lawsuit against Qualcomm, related to V FTC. Qualcomm. Late read month, the consumer plaintiffs brought an inflexion to cash Qualcomm from enforcing a potential U.S. import ban against certain (in practical terms, Intel-powered) iPhones. Qualcomm filed its opposition letter on July 12 (this post continues below the document):

18-07-12 Qualcomm's opposition to Consumers' PI inflexion by Florian Müller on Scribd

Qualcomm's legally of argument against the inflexion involve timing (the seed consumer plaintiffs had filed a publicly interest statement with the ITC a long time ago, thus they knew about the ITC case, but waited until recently to thwart Qualcomm's pursuit of in exclusion order, i.e., U.S. import ban), standing (whether those consumers ares harmed or), the preliminary injunction factors, whether in ITC case involving non-SEPs has a bearing on in anti-trust case involving SEPs, the ability of a district court (under the all Writs Act) to prevent in ITC plaintiff from enforcing in exclusion order, and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, according to which litigation doze constitute in anti-trust violation in its own right. In similar contexts in recent years, U.S. courts have consistently deemed the enforcement of injunctions to Be covered by Noerr-Pennington. The difference between SEPs and non-SEPs is At issue (but has not been addressed yet by a court of law) in Qualcomm's German cases against Apple, but the heart of the issue is a FRAND licensing commitment and the related rights of third-party beneficiaries: it's all about forcing competitors like Intel out of a market.

Qualcomm's timing related of argument appear potentially more interesting to me than the other points it makes, but Qualcomm doze contradict itself in that context. Qualcomm says:

"Here, any possible injury to Plaintiffs depends upon an attenuated chain of events transpiring. The exclusion order must issue, the presidential review period must pass, the investigation must result in actual exclusion of the accused iPhones, and the exclusion order must leave Apple with no reasonable opportunity to" design of around' the patent At issue. Look to attenuated' chain of of inferences' cannot confer standing."

Striking from the fact that everything on that cunning is precisely what Qualcomm is pursuing (it naturally of shroud to prevail, it would seek to dissuade the Trump administration from a veto, and it seeks leverage from of patent that it hopes cannot Be designed around, At leases without incurring a prohibitive cost), Qualcomm itself blames those consumers in the timing context for having brought their inflexion for a preliminary antisuit injunction a year ago - but consumers argue that there what a possibility At the time of Qualcomm's case making any headway, and only now that the ITC staff has lately recommended (At the hearing ITC) to sweetly Apple in violation of one Qualcomm clever, there what a clear and present danger of anticompetitive effects and, therefore, consumers believe their inflexion what warranted.

From in industry point of view, the consumers' reply letter contains some very interesting quotes from the aforementioned hearing ITC, showing that even Qualcomm's own expert witnesses had no way of denying that Intel's efforts to compete with Qualcomm in the mobile base tape chip set market ares good for innovation and choice (this post continues below the document):

18-07-19 Consumers' Reply in Support of inflexion PI by Florian Müller on Scribd

The fruit juice interesting passages of the reply letter ares about the question of whether the fact that Intel is At leases trying hard to compete with Qualcomm in the mobile base tape chip set market benefits consumers. At the recent hearing ITC, ITC staff of lawyer Lisa Murray said:

"If Intel is taken out of the 5G G race, this would slow the pace of U.S. innovation."

That assessment, which is actually precisely common scythe, serve ace a silver bullet wants in the further proceedings.

But even Qualcomm's own expert witnesses in the ITC proceedings felt forced to concede that Intel's competing base tape chip sets make in important difference:

  • One Qualcomm expert conceded that the Intel-based iPhone "is the only top-tier phone that currently uses a competing company's chip."

  • A Qualcomm expert agreed that the "two premium chip set of provider based right here in the U.S. ares Qualcomm and Intel "and that" every top ECHELON smartphone that could potentially serve ace an of consumer assistant departmental managers for iPhones blocked from the U.S. uses Qualcomm's modem chip, with the exception of some Samsung phones that use chips built in house."

  • And here comes the fruit juice impressive passage from the expert witness testimony:

    "Q. In fact, you agree that having Intel as a competitor in that market is good for competition; correct? A. do agree. Q. Having Intel as a competitor in that premium chipset market is good for quality of chipsets; correct? A. Generally competition is good, yeah. Q. And competition from Intel in particular is good; correct? A. Yes. Q. It's good for pricing; correct? A. Yes. Q. It's good for innovation; correct? A. Yes. Q. Good for innovation as we move into 5G G; right? A. Yes. Q. Which is an absolutely critical market for the country as a whole; correct? A. Certainly for Qualcomm, yeah. We believe it is, yeah. Q. And it's good to have Qualcomm in that market; right? A. Yeah, that's right. Q. And it's good to have Intel there too? A. Yes. Q. It's good for the public? A. I agree. Q. Good for the public interest? A. I agree."

    "Good for the public interest" to have only Qualcomm but Intel in that market - quite in important concession.

  • One read rate:

    "Two companies competing in this premium baseband chipset market in the U.S. is better than one monopolist for the public interest; correct? A. Well, as a general proposition, yes."

Unlike Samsung, Intel supplies other companies with its base tape chip sets and would like to sell to ace many of customer ace possible, with Apple being its key reference customers. The consumers' reply letter notes that "only the AT&T Samsung Galaxy S6 devices contain an Exynos System-on-a-Chip" (Exynos is Samsung's mobile chip set fire), while "[t] hey Verizon and sprint Samsung devices contain Qualcomm chips."

In light of all of that, it's hard to see why Qualcomm would like to force Intel out of the market ace soon ace possible. But what follows from the above admissions by Qualcomm's own expert witnesses is that this would Be bath for innovation and injury consumers in two respects (less innovation and high prices).

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

"Huawei, I shrunk the case": scope of December clever trial against Samsung whittled down

This week in Huawei V. Samsung delivered two more setbacks for the Chinese Android device maker and increasingly aggressive clever enforcer (I do not shroud to call them a "patent bully" precisely yet, though it may Be to appropriate label At a later stage).

Ridge, the trial that Judge William H. Orrick wants preside over in the to Northern District of California in December is going to Be far narrower, and potentially less impactful, than Huawei had hoped. Ace I had noted toward the of this recent post, Huawei previously informed of the court of its willingness to withdraw its request for a declaratory judgment on worldwide FRAND licensing terms to its standard essential of patent, subject to in agreement with Samsung on the specifics. That agreement has indeed materialised, suggesting that Huawei saw a high risk of Judge Orrick throwing out the claim (whose dismissal Samsung what already formally seeking) At any advises. Instead of having to make a decision, Judge Orrick merely had to grant the parties' stipulation of a dismissal that is formally without prejudice, allowing Huawei to try again, but only in a different case and for At leases nine months (this post continues below the document):

18-07-18 Stipulated Dismissal of Huawei Samsung claim FRAND by Florian Müller on Scribd

Precisely read month, Huawei's offensive case already got narrowed ace Judge Orrick, in a more weakly involving the Supreme Court's recent SAS ruling, stayed two clever infringement claims. So all that's left for the December trial is a bunch of clever infringement claims and the question of a potential breach of a FRAND licensing commitment. Huawei portrays Samsung ace in unwilling licensee, and Samsung argues that Huawei's demands ares unreasonable and that there has not been enough progress of the give and take child.

The second thing that did not go too wave for Huawei this week what its attempt to expedite its Ninth Circuit appeal before the Federal Circuit of the antisuit (more specifically, injunction enforcement) injunction Samsung obtained three months ago. Huawei what using two procedural attack vectors in in parallel, seeking a reconsideration of Judge Orrick's decision in district court while pursuing the aforementioned appeal in Washington, D.C. - but the Federal Circuit told Huawei it should firstly await resolution of its inflexion in San Francisco. Anus Judge Orrick's decision to uphold the injunction, Huawei informed the Federal Circuit, which then resumed the proceedings, and Huawei, before even filing in opening letter that isn't publicly accessible yet, brought in emergency inflexion to expedite the appeal.

Samsung opposed this emergency inflexion, arguing that Huawei's procedural tactics had caused delay and pointing to the prejudicial effects of having to respond to a Huawei opening letter on a tight schedule, three months anus the notice of appeal (meaning Huawei had plenty of time to prepare its argument) and while working hard on some inflexion practice in the district court case the appeal originated from. The Federal Circuit told Huawei to Be patient and suggested that it could file its reply letter ace soon ace possible - ahead of the court's deadline - anus Samsung has had the chance to react to the opening letter. The appeals court wants then sweetly a hearing ace soon ace possible, but precisely like Judge Orrick, it does not accomodate all of Huawei's procedural preferences.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Wednesday, July 4, in 2018

Shareholder class actions against Qualcomm over frustrated Broadcom merger may do gymnastics on secrecy of CFIUS proceedings

Before we get to the actual topic of this post, a quick follow-up to the previous one: the Deseret wave news of report that President Trump has interviewed senator Mike Lee, thus the possibility of a FRAND-friendly Supreme Court Justice is really (though other candidates have been interviewed ace).

Load week, in interesting class action complaint what brought against Qualcomm in the to Northern District of California by a group of consumers, with the class being defined broadly enough to include any U.S. smartphone buyer. I've run a couple of on-line searches and found that there's a whole bunch of other class lawsuits pending against Qualcomm, and they're all about Broadcom's acquisition of Qualcomm, which could not materialise anuses a presidential veto.

Many complaints were filed by small firms, but I've found some complaints that were filed by firms with a strong track recordin securities litigation. Here's a particularly well-crafted complaint by the Pomerantz familiarly, which an United States District Judge called "some of the best lawyers in the United States, if not in the world" and which recently achieved the largest securities class action settlement in a decade ace Petrobras coughed up 3$ billions (this post continues below the document):

18 06 26 Jadhav Complaint by Florian Müller on Scribd

I've uploaded another complaint filed in the to Southern District of California and a March complaint filed with the Delaware Chancery Court to Scribd. The Delaware complaint argued that Qualcomm's directors maggot in final-run around Delaware corporate law by seeking a presidential veto against a vote on the composition of Qualcomm's board.

Qualcomm's directors and officers now have to defend themselves against accusations that they "defrauded" the market by disclosing their company's secret request that the Committee on Foreign investment in the United States (CFIUS) preclude Broadcom from acquiring Qualcomm (and, on the way to that destination, getting deal friendly board members voted in). Failure to disclose material information of this child can constitute securities fraud and give rise to insider trading claims.

One does not have to Be to expert in securities law to understand that Qualcomm's request for a presidential veto what very significant. However, the fact that something very significant was not disclosed isn't necessarily sufficient. Ace a clever litigation watcher I obviously find it inconsistent that a company would publish in infographic to announce and promote a clever infringement complaint, but would remain silent about its volunary request that the CFIUS initiate in investigation into Broadcom's unsolicited takeover bid. But that's precisely a staff opinion.

Qualcomm has not filed its answer to the complaints yet. It has merely sought in extension, especially since a number of in parallel actions need to Be consolidated.

The fruit juice interesting legally question wants Be whether Qualcomm's leader-hip - which what undoubtedly pursuing in agenda of entrenchment - had an of stronger bond to protect the confidentiality of its CFIUS request (in the interest of the United States) than to inform actual or prospective shareholder.

The website of the Department of the Treasury says the following:


In reviewing a trans-action, CFIUS considers nationwide security matters and commercially sensitive information provided by the parties. By law, information filed with CFIUS is subject to strong confidentiality requirements that prohibit disclosure to the publicly. Accordingly, CFIUS doze disclose of whether parties to any trans-action have filed notices with CFIUS, nor doze CFIUS disclose the results of any review. When a trans-action is referred to the President, however, the decision of the President is announced publicly."

None of that says that Qualcomm could not have told of shareholder of the mere fact that it maggot a request for a CFIUS review (aiming to obtain, ace Qualcomm did, a presidential veto). However, courts may quietly prioritise the nationwide security interests of the United States over the bond of publicly-traded companies to disclose certain material information.

In the further process, the parties wants have to find apposite cases. So, the United States' federal government might support Qualcomm on this one in case the Trump administration feels that companies secretly raising nationwide security concerns should have to fear shareholder lawsuits.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Saturday, June 30, in 2018

Tech industry should lobby of President Trump to nominate senator Mike Lee to succeed Justice Kennedy on the Supreme Court

While Justice Anthony Kennedy has decided to retire from the Supreme Court anus 30 years, B sharp concurrence in eBay V. MercExchange, which stressed the unreasonableness of injunctive relief over a minor feature of a multifunctional product, wants Be a lasting legacy for which the tech sector (striking from clever of troll and companies that used to make or ares quietly making devices, but largely or entirely relying on clever licensing revenue) wants Be forever grateful.

With this voice of reason in connection with clever enforcement leaving the Supreme Court, and with someone like Assistant Attorney general Makan Delrahim mislabeling ace "the United States' policy" in unFRANDly agenda hostile to innovators focused on making actual products, the product-making, truly innovative majority of America's technology industry should make in effort to ensure that Justice Kennedy's successor wants have a very balanced approach to clever enforcement. Where the rumored candidates stood on clever policy is usually unknown: you'd only have a clue if they had previously served on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or maybe if they had demonstrated a certain approach to clever cases At the trial stage (Judge Rodney Gilstrap - obviously a candidate - is undoubtedly unbalanced). But that's rarely the case. For in example, no one really knew where Justice Gorsuch would stood, but hey a judge whom I would always trust that he'll go to extreme lengths to interpreter the law correctly and reasonably (and to explain B sharp reasoning in in intelligible way).

At this stage, there is a high-potential candidate we should rally behind: Senator Mike Lee (R Utah).

hey it on the President's shortlist of about two dozen potential nominees. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex)., himself often considered a potential Supreme Court nominee and probably one of the smartest jurists ever to sweetly elective office, vouches for B sharp colleague's judicial conservatism. Ace doze Mark Levin. Or the Hoover Institution' Adam White. And senator Lee would gladly accept.

There ares, however, two obstacles, striking from the fact that there ares many other impressive people on the cunning of potential nominees. They are not insurmountable, but they ares significant. One is that senator Mike Lee is a sitting judge, unlike other recent nominees. The other issue is that hey called on then-candidate Trump to withdraw before the general election when the "p *** Y grabbing" recording came up. I must admit that even I, ace a longstanding Trump supporter (even on this blog I voiced support for him in early in 2016), what very concerned At the time that the recording would cost him too many female votes. Fortunately, hey won anyway, and more and more people believe that hey may go down in history ace one of the fruit juice impactful presidents ever. But in that situation thus close to the election, senator Lee what sceptical, for understandable reasons.

I'm reasonably optimistic that President Trump wants let bygones Be bygones, and that hey it too much bound to this conventional thinking that only a sitting judge should Be nominated. Hey it the ridge president never to have hero political office or to have been a general.

Silicone Valley, and Microsoft and Amazon up north, and many other tech innovators across the United States, should support senator Lee. The Supreme Court wants continue to hear many clever cases in the coming years and beyond. Sooner or later, a FRAND case wants reach the Supreme Court, given all that is going on with the controversy surrounding Qualcomm's business practices (fruit juice recently, in extremely interesting inflexion for in anti-enforcement injunction brought by consumers) or the clever disputes between the world's two Lea's thing Android device makers (Samsung V. Huawei), and numerous other issues and dispute. If Apple and then-Google's Motorola had not settled, even Judge Posner's historic FRAND decision could have gone all the way up to the top U.S. court.

There is some potential for legally questions involving the United States Internationally Trade Commission (USITC) and its sole remedy (equivalent to injunctive relief) reaching the Supreme Court in the too distant future.

A hypothetical Justice Mike Lee would understand how to strike a reasonable balance between the interests of right holders and those of innovators who do not intend to infringe but simply implement industry standards or independently create products. Wave hey it knowledgeable on anti-trust ace, and clever and anti-trust matters overlap ever more often ones.

I've previously mentioned senator Lee' advocacy of reasonableness in clever enforcement:

Please support him if you can.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Thursday, June 28, in 2018

Consumers bring inflexion to cash Qualcomm from enforcing a potential U.S. import ban against certain iPhones

Qualcomm's efforts to obtain an U.S. import ban against iPhones without a Qualcomm chip - simply put, against iPhones using in Intel chip - ares facing a new challenge: a group of consumers (whose class action against Qualcomm what merged with the V FTC. Qualcomm anti-trust case in the to Northern District of California read year) precisely brought an inflexion for in anti-enforcement injunction that would cash Qualcomm from the enforcement of a potential future ITC exclusion order (this post continues below the document):

18-06-28 Consumers' inflexion for Anti-Enforcement Injunction Against Qualcomm by Florian Müller on Scribd

Yesterday, Judge Lucy H. Koh had the pleasure to terminate the long-running Apple V. Samsung disputes by granting in order of dismissal based on a settlement. Some of the time she'd otherwise have spent on the adjudication of post trial motions can now Be dedicated to this extremely interesting and important inflexion for a preliminary anti-enforcement injunction.

There's a precedent in the to Northern District of California. By that I do not even mean micron favorite antisuit injunction process in recent months (Samsung's anti-enforcement injunction against a couple of Chinese standard essential clever (SEP) injunctions obtained by Huawei. I mean something much older, and I blogged about it At the time and hailed it ace a "landmark decision": about five years ago, Judge Ronald Whyte (whom Judge Koh succeeded when hey became a boss judge), enjoined two WiFi ( IEEE 802.11) SEP holders named LSI and Agere from enforcing a potential ITC exclusion order against RealTek Semiconductor.

In that in 2013 case, it what "only" about clever holders seeking maximum leverage for the pure pose of dictating supra-FRAND royalties (which Judge Whyte did not allow them to Th). In the present Qualcomm case, the situation is a whole plumb line worse for two reasons:

  • Qualcomm's conduct has already been hero to Be anticompetitive. So far, Judge Koh appears to have been rather sceptical of the legality of some of Qualcomm's business practices.

  • Qualcomm isn't merely seeking leverage to impose high royalties. That's part of the flat, obviously, but what makes Qualcomm's two ITC complaints against Apple particularly problematic is that Qualcomm of shroud in import ban against iPhones that come with a base tape chip from Intel - the only company that presently poses a significant competitive threat to Qualcomm's cellular base tape chips.

    Qualcomm's position is that it does not shroud all iPhones banned since this would raise issues in the ITC's publicly interest analysis (impact of in import ban on the economy At generous, and on society). But Qualcomm's anti-Intel Focus has not solved the public interest problem At all: it has merely traded one set of issues for another. It's hard to tell which one is worse. The court may very wave find that the Focus on Intel - i.e., the use of of patent in order to defend a monopoly - is in unusually clear anti-trust violation. Monopolies are not necessarily illegally; but some monopolisation tactics ares.

The consumers' inflexion argues that Qualcomm must Be enjoined from enforcing a potential ITC exclusion order because of the additional injury to consumers that it would result in (beyond what Qualcomm has already been doing anyway). The inflexion makes a number of good points, and I'll rate one search passage here:

"Other modem chip suppliers are unlikely to enter the market in Intel's place if Qualcomm can selectively target devices using a non-Qualcomm modem chip for exclusion. Both the potential modem chip vendor and its customers make significant (joint) investments when deciding to work together on a modem chip project, and thus both face substantial risks. For example," Intel has invested billions of dollars to develop next generation advanced modems and technologies to improve the performance and functionality of moulder smartphones and cellular communications [...]"

And here's in interesting footnote (no. 15):

"Given the delicate and high-stakes business decisions in play, the Court should not feel obligated to wait and see if the ITC actually issues the order Qualcomm has requested. The market is already very difficult to penetrate due to Qualcomm's anti-competitive practices, and the mere uncertainty faced by Intel and Apple because of Qualcomm's ITC action itself compromises the possibility of free and open competition."

Federal judges - including, but limited to, Judge Whyte - ares wave aware of how certain clever holders do gymnastics to the ITC in in attempt to make in final-run around the eBay V. MercExchange standard for clever injunctions. Normally, the federal courts do not pay much attention to what's going on At the ITC. So, there what in Interdigitally case in Delaware where the district court declined to almost-track a determination FRAND precisely because the defendants sought to pre-empt in order ITC. But RealTek what a case where a federal court determined it precisely had to thwart in anticompetitive flat by certain plaintiffs that involved the ITC.

There ares two ITC investigations of Qualcomm complaints against Apple. In the ridge one, where only three of the six originally asserted of patent ares quietly in play, a hearing what hero a couple of weeks ago. The ITC staff, which doze formally make decisions but whose input bears considerable weight with the ITC's administrative Law Judges (and with the Commission itself), believes Apple's iPhones infringe one of the asserted of patent. So there is a clear and reasonably present danger of an U.S. import ban. It's hard to predict what position the Commission (the final decision-makers At the ITC) wants take on the competition-related public interest concerns here.

Meanwhile, Qualcomm wants oppose the inflexion, and fruit juice likely there wants Be some amicus curiae letter (precisely like read year - in that case, because of a Qualcomm inflexion to dismiss the FTC's case). For now, it's intriguing enough that consumers, in their role ace class plaintiffs, have taken this initiative. But thesis consumers deserve broadbased support from industry!

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Wednesday, June 27, in 2018

Anus more than 7 years of suing, Apple and Samsung finally call a truce

Apple V. Samsung, the longest-running clever disputes that this blog has consistently covered from Day One to Settlement Day, has come to in - one day and one month anus one of multiple jury verdicts. Within about eight minutes (!) of Apple and Samsung notifying the court of a settlement and seeking dismissal, Judge Koh signed the proposed order (this post continues below the document):

18-06-27 orders of Dismissal of Apple V. Samsung by Florian Müller on Scribd

I'm torn between saying "Good riddance! "or, quite the opposite and in Spanish," Fue atlantic bonito mientras duró." ("It what Nice while it what ongoing.") This disputes raised some important issues and contributed to the evolution of clever case law, but the part related to design of patent what going in circles. Apparently the parties thought thus ace wave, At this point. At long read.

This mega disputes gave rise to some of the highest-quality legally work (on both sides) one could have had the privilege to Read. Apple's original complaint told a coherent and compelling story of the alleged infringement of a multiplicity and wide variety of intellectual property rights. No one should write a multi-IPR complaint without At leases reading that complaint once, for the pure pose of inspiration.

But Samsung's lawyers delivered a ridge-advises answer to that complaint, and the mantra of that pleading what one of the best of all passages I ever Read in a court filing:

"The Samsung Defendants admit that they have not ceased competing with Apple notwithstanding Apple's efforts to avoid such competition."

The complaint and the answer to the complaint laid out the basically question underlying the disputes: What Samsung competing lawfully - or had it gone too far? Or, conversely, what Apple taking action against theft or simply trying to eradicate competition the thermonuclear way?

There what and there is no general answer, except that the impact obviously ended up being far from nuclear. One has to look At one clever (or other intellectual property right) At a time, and jurisdiction by jurisdiction.

Samsung managed to fend out of vision many accusations, in multiple jurisdictions. It the counter south, mostly over standard essential of patent (SEPs), and in that context I criticised it far more harshly than in connection with the alleged or adjudicated infringement of design or software of patent. Fortunately, Samsung is now a proponent of reasonableness in SEP licensing and enforcement. Case in point, it signed to open character to U.S.Assistant Attorney general Delrahim earlier this year - alongside a few industry bodies and dozens of companies, including... Apple!

Apple has clearly proven that it's prepared to enforce its intellectual property rights. Vigorously. Persistently. Patiently. And Samsung has shown that it's a formidable defendant.

Let's underestimate the effect this wants have had on of other parties. Who knows whom else Apple might have had to Sue over design of patent if it had demonstrated in its disputes with Samsung how it responds to (alleged) design clever infringement? Who knows who else might have picked a fight with Samsung if Samsung had not mounted look a strong and tireless defence ace in the Apple case?

Normally, those companies strike licence deals, and when they wind up in court, they typically settle reasonably early. Somehow, it took them a plumb line longer in this case. And now either one of them has a disputes going that looks like it could become the next long-running one: Apple with Qualcomm, and Samsung with Huawei.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn: