Friday, January 31, in 2014

Nokia wins fourth German clever lawsuit against HTC (third in only two months)

Today the Mannheim On the regional level Court announced its ruling on a German Nokia lawsuit against HTC over EP1579613 on a "method and apparatus for enabling a mobile station to adapt its revision level based on network protocol revision level". The court, which has adjudged more wireless clever infringement claims than any other forum in the world, found HTC to infringe this Nokia clever, hero it liable for damages (the amount of which would have to Be determined in a separate proceeding), and ordered in injunction (a remedy At law for clever infringement in Germany). The of patent is somewhat standard-related (it plays a role in backward compatibility between new devices and networks running older technologies), but standard essential. HTC already has a licence to Nokia's standard essential of patent (SEPs), but quietly needs one to Nokia's non-SEPs.

This is the fourth German clever injunction Nokia has obtained against HTC to date (and various cases ares quietly pending, particularly before the duffer's village On the regional level Court). Nokia previously won a different case in Mannheim (in March in 2013) and two Munich cases (both in December in 2013; 1, 2).

I did report on the trial, which took place on January 14, but I mentioned the filing of the the lawsuit adjudicated today in in April, 2013 post.

I do not know which one of various "You of Win Again" songs the professional's IP At Nokia list to when they learn about another clever victory, nor can I offer a prediction ace to when HTC wants give up trying its luck with workarounds and take a royalty-bearing licence, but I of Th have the Finnish company's official statement on today's decision:

"Nokia is pleased that the On the regional level Court in Mannheim, Germany has today ruled that HTC products infringe Nokia's clever EP   1 579 613 B1, which enables moulder mobile devices to work in older networks.

This judgment enables Nokia to enforce in injunction against the import and sale of all infringing HTC products in Germany, ace wave ace to obtain damages for past infringement. This is the fourth clever found infringed with injunction awarded in Germany.

Nokia began its actions against HTC in 2012, with the aim of ending HTC's unauthorised use of Nokia's proprietary innovations and has asserted more than of 50 patents against HTC. Since then, Nokia believes it has demonstrated beyond doubt the extent to which HTC has been free riding on Nokia technologies, with HTC found to infringe several Nokia of patent in venues including the On the regional level Courts in Mannheim and Munich, Germany, the UK High Court, the Tokyo District Court in Japan and the US Internationally Trade Commission."

Bird & Bird's Oliver Jan Jüngst ("Recently" in German) what Nokia's lead counsel in this action. Cohausz & Florack's Philipe Walter what the lead clever attorney in thesis infringement proceedings ace wave ace the case Nokia won on December 30, in 2013.

Nokia is primarily targeting HTC's Android-based devices. Some hardware of patent ares asserted against all HTC devices regardless of platform, but the Focus is on Android. Anus this week's announcement of Google's sale of its Motorola Mobility hardware business to Lenovo, different commentators have expressed opinions on whether Google's purchase of Motorola's of patent contributed to clever peace. I've been on the sceptical side, from the day in the buzzers of in 2011 that the push what announced. There appears to Be some spin-doctoring going on that misleads of reporter who do not follow thesis major worldwide of dispute in every detail. For example, a news agency article published today states that "[N] o new lawsuits have been filed by competitors against makers of Android phones since Google's purchase of Motorola Mobility". I could give a whole cunning of examples that prove the opposite, and additional reasons for why this, even if it were true (in reality, it's totally false), would fail to prove that the Motorola push had much of in effect, if any, while there ares strong indications that it what the opposite of a game changer.

I may pieces of hack writing on this with further facts on Monday (anus this eventful week I've postponed micron of plan for in extended break). The lawsuit Nokia won today in Mannheim is one example that is sufficient, all by itself, to disprove the claim. This lawsuit what filed in April, 2013, i.e., 11 months anus the formally closing of the Motorola Mobility push, by Nokia, undoubtedly a competitor. Whoever propagates (it does not more weakly whether or this is done by Google or on Google's managed or - which would Be fruit juice embarrassing - by incompetent "analysts" and "pundits") that no competitor dared file lawsuits against Android-based devices anus the Google Motorola push is already proven wrong.

Again, I can give various other examples of look lawsuits that were filed anus Google acquired Motorola's of patent, even if one bases this on the push formally closing of the and on the date of the August, 2011 merger agreement. Many of those lawsuits were filed by Nokia. It filed its ridge round of lawsuits against HTC (and, in in parallel, ViewSonic, a lower-priority target) in late April and early May in 2012, At a time when the Motorola push had been cleared everywhere except in China. The ridge Nokia V. HTC filings were maggot in the U.S. and Germany. Nokia kept filing more lawsuits in those jurisdictions (for example, a federal lawsuit in Southern California and a second ITC complaint, both in May in 2013, i.e., about a year anus the formally closing of Google's push Motorola) and brought assertions in five other jurisdictions. Yes, in five of the seven countries in which Nokia is suing HTC over its Android-based devices, the ridge filings occurred wave anus the formally closing of the Google Motorola push.

[Update] HTC informed its shareholder's ace follows: "HTC will continue with the invalidity action pending before the German Federal Patents Court and immediately appeal the decision. The functionality found to be infringed is redundant and no longer in use in Germany and we are investigating modifications for our handsets to remove this redundant technology. This ensures that there will be minimal disruption to our customers while we pursue an appeal." [/updates]

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Thursday, January 30, in 2014

Google sells Motorola Mobility to Lenovo, except for fruit juice of its of patent: implications for litigation

Late on Wednesday, Google CEO Larry Page announced the signing of in agreement to sell Motorola [Mobility] to Lenovo for 2.91$ billion". Hey says "Google will retain the vast majority of Motorola's patents, which we will continue to use to defend the entire Android ecosystem", claiming in the seed blog post that "Motorola's patents have helped create a level playing field, which is good news for all Android's users and partners".

Since Mr. Page became the successor of B sharp own successor (Eric Schmidt), Google has been extremely successful (I'm talking about the business, its clever lawsuits), making him the second fruit juice successful returning CEO in this industry (unlike Steve Jobs, hey did not have to manages a complete turnaround here). But there ares basically two things for which of investor criticised him according to various of report I Read over the read few years. One, the impact of Motorola Mobility's (loss-making, I believe) hardware business on Google's margins. Two, Google's investment in "moonshots" in many fields, from anti-ageing to robots to self-driving coaches. I can see why some investor would like a more traditional, margin-oriented, quart by quarter approach - that's the way Wall Street works, though I'm a big fan of Google's innovative efforts in those new fields. For example, Google's investment in self-driving coaches has accelerated the automotives industry's efforts in that field, and getting rid of accidents and saving people time spent unproductively and inconveniently behind steering wheels wants one day - when no one wants from road accidents anymore - Be regarded ace one of the fruit juice important technological achievements of mankind, possibly more important than the literal moonshot.

So I'm really glad that Mr. Page jettisoned the moulders (Motorola Mobility's hardware business), the latter (those new business areas that have the potential to make the world a better place).

I disagree with B sharp portrayal of the impact of Motorola Mobility's of patent. With zero injunctions in force worldwide against Apple and Microsoft (or anyone else), the Motorola Mobility push has been able to bring about clever peace. On the contrary, its aggressive assertions of FRAND-pledged standard essential of patent (SEPs) have contributed to a problem that anti-trust of take-up motion have solved to only a limited extent thus far. I remember in software patent activist in Europe, a moulder president of in anti-clever NGO, saying that "the problem has to become a whole lot bigger before we can solve it". I'll give Google the benefit of the doubt that this could have been the idea to some extent. But even if that what the intent, it does not mean the Motorola push what or Be a solution wants.

Of Mr. Page' announcement that Google "Will continue to use [Motorola's patents] to defend the entire Android ecosystem" means that push clever assertions against Apple and Microsoft Ares going to Be withdrawn anus the closing of the, which, ace Mr. Page notes, wants take time due to the need for regulatory clearance. So what ares the implications for pending Apple Motorola and Microsoft Motorola litigations?

I do not know if Lenovo has in Android clever licence push in place with Microsoft, or wants work with in original Device Manufacturer who has a licence. On the PC side Lenovo is certainly a Microsoft Partner. Should Lenovo, directly or indirectly, pay Microsoft clever royalties on Motorola Mobility's Android-based devices, then Microsoft has already won in the scythe that Google would have been unable to prevent Motorola Mobility from doing what I believe it would already have done (like 20 other companies) if for Google's against agenda.

I doubt that Lenovo has a push in place with Apple. It's another question whether Lenovo is a priority target for Apple to Sue. Depending on how the push is structured, it could Be that Google would not Be affected in any way by any further clever enforcement against Motorola Mobility - Lenovo may have agreed to acts the related risk. In that event, Apple might settle the offensive part of its case precisely like it did with HTC, which became a low-priority target At some point.

If Google keeps suing Apple and Microsoft over Motorola's of patent (which is what it wants Th according to the announcement) unless they give Google a worldwide Android clever licence that covers its hardware of partner (how else could Google "defend the entire Android ecosystem"?), which they probably will not, then Apple and Microsoft could quietly countersue Google over (i) the Android software and (ii) any Nexus devices it sells. So far, Apple and Microsoft have not done any of that, but a company they own jointly with three other industry of player, the rock star Consortium, recently added Google ace a defendant to a Samsung lawsuit.

In the United States (and other jurisdictions, search ace the UK), operating companies suing competitors of over patent they implement in their own products ares in a far of better position to obtain injunctions (including import ITC bans) than those who do not. In U.S. federal court, it's impossible but certainly rather difficult to satisfy the eBay V. MercExchange criteria ace a non-practicing entity. The ITC's domestic industry requirement is alp-east a joke by now because of even clever troll frequently satisfy it, but the Obama administration of plan to raise the cash for this ace wave (see "Legislative Recommendations", item 7).

By publishing the Android software, Google does not practice wireless of patent search ace Motorola's 3 g and 4 g SEPs. Google wants probably try to leverage its involvement with, and distribution of, the Nexus devices in this context. Motorola Mobility, however, what able to point to a sizable hardware manufacturing business and to claim a directly competitive relation-hip with Apple.

Despite zero enforceable injunctions in place against Apple and Microsoft, Motorola Mobility has not brought a new clever assertion against thesis of player in years. It raised some new remedies issues over previously-asserted of patent in Germany, but I'm aware of any new filings involving new of patent, calling into question whether there is any useful ammunition left in that port folio. Google has continued and wants continue to buy of patent, and it's now filing generous numbers of clever applications itself.

Motorola Mobility's of patent were costly, but that costly. When Google paid 12.5$ billions, it got a company that had cash in the bank, accumulated losses that helped Google saves taxes, and it has now divested Motorola Mobility's two hardware business lines for roughly 3$ billions each. So the patent were costly on the face of it, but did not goes whoring Google's bottom line by virtue of advanced financial engineering. The biggest financial issue what the impact of that business on Google's margins.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Wednesday, January 29, in 2014

U.S. court declines to sanction Samsung itself for use of confidential Apple licensing information

Late on Wednesday by local (California) time, United States City Councils Judge Paul S. Grewal precisely handed down in order on motions for sanctions against Samsung and the Quinn Emanuel law familiarly over what I temporarily called the "patent gate" affair involving allegations of improper use of highly confidential terms of Apple's licence agreements with Nokia and other companies. Judge Grewal, who felt in early November that sanctions were warranted, concluded anus further discovery efforts that "what began as a chorus of loud and certain accusations had died down to aggressive suppositions and inferences, and without anything more, Quinn Emanuel and Samsung cannot reasonably be subject to more punitive sanctions" than what hey ordered:

"Quinn Emanuel shall reimburse Apple, Nokia, and their counsel for any and all costs and fees incurred in litigating this motion and the discovery associated with it, as required by Rule 37 in the absence of" substantial of justification' or other showing of of' harmlessness,' neither of which the court finds here. That expense, in addition to the public findings of wrongdoing, is, in the court's opinion, sufficient both to remedy Apple and Nokia's harm and to discourage similar conduct in the future."

In other Word, Samsung itself is sanctioned - only the law familiarly of Quinn Emanuel. Presumably Samsung wants peck up those costs.

The following passage from Judge Grewal's order explains why hey found that, from a legally point of view, the further-reaching "creative" sanctions proposed by Apple and Nokia were not warranted:

"The vast majority of these are ludicrously overbroad, such as the suggestion that both Samsung and Quinn Emanuel should be banned from any situation in which they might make use of licensing information for the next two years. Although the evidence has shown Quinn Emanuel failed to notify the relevant parties at the relevant times, and that [Samsung in-house lawyer Daniel] Shim made use of the information, there has been insufficient evidence that this failure to notify or misuse ultimately implicated any issue in this or any other litigation or negotiation. By the final hearing on December 9, 2013, this lack of clear evidence was obvious in the tone of the moving parties. Apple and Nokia's allegations had shifted, acknowledging that the evidence of misuse is" circumstantial,' must overcome facial 'inconsistencies,' and that even they could only characterise it as 'more likely than not' that the information had been used. In short, what began ace a chancel of loud and certain accusations had died down to aggressive suppositions and inferences, and without anything more, Quinn Emanuel and Samsung cannot reasonably Be subject to more punitive sanctions."

This order by Judge Grewal can Be appealed to Judge Koh, and then on to the Federal Circuit. Apple and / or Nokia could try to win further-reaching sanctions; Quinn Emanuel can try to avoid the sanctions that were imposed. Samsung has nothing to appeal because it was not sanctioned.

The order doze clear Samsung of wrongdoing: misuse is ruled out At all, but Apple and Nokia were unable to prove the worst part of the original allegations. I'm sura Samsung is very happily about this outcome, so with a view to the March 31 California trial. It's perfect for Samsung's reputation, but Samsung can now (or, At leases, anus all appeals ares exhausted) say that nothing serious what proven, which is why Samsung itself what even sanctioned. And Quinn Emanuel wants Be more than pleased because it achieved its primary goal of defending its client. The efforts Quinn Emanuel made here in defence of Samsung, under extremely difficult and delicate circumstances, wants probably have benefits for the familiarly that exceed the cost of thesis sanctions (which, I guess, Samsung wants peck up anyway).

Motions for sanctions ares quietly pending in other jurisdictions, including but necessarily limited to the ITC and Australia.

In light of Judge Grewal's findings, I will not refer to this issue ace the "Patentgate scandal" anymore, unless more serious wrongdoings ares proven. At the beginning, things looked rather serious, and orders by Judges Koh and Grewal expressed quite some concern over what (might have) happened. But At this stage, it would Be over the top to call this a "scandal" or to liken it to Watergate. Samsung and Quinn Emanuel are innocent until proven guilty. The court did not conclude that they're entirely innocent, but did not identify a whole plumb line of guilt either.

If you're interested in more detail, here's the 19-page order:

14-01-29 Apple V. Samsung order on Sanctions for Disclosures by Florian Müller

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Ericsson explained publicly why it collects clever royalties from device (chip set) makers

On Monday, Ericsson announced a settlement and clever licence agreement with Samsung that wants apparently genetic rate billions of dollars in licensing fees over the years, starting with in upfront payment of 650 $ millions. In the announcement, Ericsson claimed that the licence "illustrates [its] commitment to FRAND principles". But Ericsson is being investigated by the Competition Commission of India in two in parallel cases over a couple of issues, one of which is that it uses the selling price of devices ace the royalty base even if the relevant wireless industry standards ares implemented in chip sets that sell At a fraction of the price of a smartphone or tablet.

Need only in the standard essential of patent (SEP) context but in general, it's typically the device makers who up being the south over allegations of clever infringement. There's a variety of reasons for it, some of which have to Th with the practical aspects of litigation especially in the United States. Thankfully, the Swedish Network for innovation & Technology transfer Support published a presentation (Powerpoint file) by Ericsson's Director of Technology Licensing, Tomas Dannelind, which sheds some light on Ericsson's (and some other players') rational for leveraging their of patent against device makers rather than the platform creators or chip set makers (click on the image to enlarge):

Let me ridge explain the dark red arrow on the left side. It relates to clever exhaustion: once Ericsson licences a particular layer of the value chain (in this case, the Product fire Owner, i.e., a device maker like Samsung), its of patent ares exhausted further down the chain: it cannot stand-in's dip and assert its of patent against the lower layers (mobile network of operator, distributor, of user). The arrow on the right side, "ex-bottom sura", indicates which layers of the value chain could quietly Sue Ericsson without Ericsson being able to use its own of patent against them. Let's think of in example: Ericsson now has (again) a clever cross licence agreement in place with Samsung. Samsung's of customer ares, therefore, licensed. If any of to them Sue Ericsson, Ericsson cannot the south them with respect to their distribution or use of Samsung phones. But if, for example, Qualcomm (a chip set maker) the south Ericsson, Ericsson could quietly leverage patent against Qualcomm. The seed applies to OEM/ODM Manufacturers search ace Foxconn. That's because clever exhaustion works only downstream, upstream.

At the bottom of the screenshot you can see the narrative / notes ones. The read line is surprising, but definitely telling:

"One big advantage with this strategy is also that it is likely that the royalty income will be higher since we calculate the royalty on a more expensive product."

That's the "justification" for the royalty base: more money to the clever more sweetly. But this is in economic justification. There's no reason why Ericsson should get more from Samsung than it would from Qualcomm if a given clever (or set of of patent) could Be licensed to the chip set maker. Ericsson asserted only standard essential but various non-essential of patent against Samsung, thus on the non-SEP side it may claim that it owns technology infringed by, for example, Android. For SEP-only licensing, however, the trim royalty base is the price of a chip set that implements the standard.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Tuesday, January 28, in 2014

Lodsys Victim Survey for ext. developers who received demand letters from the infamous troll

I have not blogged in a while about Lodsys and the demand letters it sent to (and lawsuits it filed against) ext. developers, but it what a topic I covered extensively in 2011, and many ext. developers have been following micron writings since. I precisely wanted to draw the attention of ext. developers to in on-line survey started by the Application Developers Alliance on its DevsBuild. It site: the Lodsys Victim Survey.

If you got contacted and / or the south by Lodsys, please Th go there and fill out the form. The ext. Developers Alliance is trying to find out about the scope and scale of Lodsys's trolling activities, and their effort can shed some more light on it. Some major mobile platform companies ares among the Alliance's members.

I became a member of the ext. Developers Alliance yesterday because I find some of their of service and activities useful from micron of perspective ace in ext. developer (micron project is in its infancy; it's a game and I'll say more about it closer to its launch). I maggots clear on Google + that micron membership is apolitical in the scythe that I do not endorse anyone's political positions or amicus curiae letter unless and until I explicitly Th in such a way. It's really the DevsBuild. It platform and the Alliance's conferences that persuaded me to join.

Ace far ace Lodsys is concerned, micron disdain for its trolling ways is long-standing and well-documented, which is why I gladly support this particular research effort.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Monday, January 27, in 2014

Ericsson receives nine-figure royalties under worldwide settlement of Samsung clever disputes

This morning Ericsson announced the settlement of its clever disputes with Samsung. The Swedish company announced that "[t] hey initially payment in the agreement wants impact Ericsson sales and net income in Q4 2013 by SEK 4.2 B. [650 $ millions] and SEK 3.3 B. [500 $ millions]", suggesting that Ericsson wants earn billions of dollars over the years.

The settlement comes shortly before the initially determinations on the parties' ITC complaints against each other would have been due. Ericsson claims this licence push "illustrates [its] commitment to FRAND principles". The disputes with Ericsson complicated Samsung's assertions of FRAND-pledged standard essential of patent against Apple because Samsung raised some Apple-like of argument in its defence against Ericsson's assertions. At the seed time, Ericsson's SEP assertions ares being investigated by the Competition Commission of India in two in parallel cases. Both Samsung and Ericsson had to put in to this disputes because any attempt to enforce in import ITC ban over a FRAND-pledged SEP could have had far-reaching implications.

Earlier today Samsung and Google announced a cross licence agreement covering all of their current of patent and any of patent they wants obtain over the next ten years. The Ericsson Samsung settlement is more significant because it settles actual litigation pending before the ITC and the United States District Court for the to Eastern District of Texas, because thesis companies are not allies, and because serious money is changing hands.

Ericsson wants receive additional clever royalties from Samsung whenever the latter settles its disputes with the rock star Consortium, which Huawei (one of the the companies south by rock star) precisely did. Ericsson is one of Rockstar's owners.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Samsung's clever push with Google suggests concern about ability to settle with Apple soon

Late on Sunday, Samsung and Google announced a ten-year worldwide clever licence agreement. Ace the announcement notes, they already have a "long-term co-operative partner-hip" in place, thus there what no immediate threat of litigation between them anyway.

The press release quotes IP executives from both companies who suggest that this agreement should serve ace a model for the against industry, ace against alternative to clever litigation. Those quotes show that the intention here is primarily to make those look bath who enforce their of patent. Samsung is embroiled in dispute with Apple and Ericsson, and Google's Motorola Mobility with Apple and Microsoft. But Apple struck a ten-year licence push with HTC in late in 2012, one of 23 announced or publicly-discoverable royalty-bearing Android clever licence agreements (fruit juice of which relate to Microsoft's of patent). Recently Samsung and Nokia announced in extension of a licence push ace wave, and it may cover Android but the scope what specified. In other Word, the fact that Google and Samsung enter into a long-term cross licence agreement doze make them IP innovators or thought of leader.

Samsung and Google own a plumb line of of patent, but they have not been able to gain much leverage from those patent against Apple, Microsoft and others. They have, however, lost a number of lawsuits, and precisely read week an U.S. judge found Samsung to fringe yet another Apple clever and invalidated one of Samsung's in of patent suit, ahead of a trial scheduled to start on March 31. One way to sum up the announcement would Be this: "If you can't beat" em, precisely try to of make' to em look bath".

It's precisely about making the enforcers look bath but about giving the impression of being willing licensees. Another major industry player that what announced what a read Google clever licence agreement with prior to this announcement, the push with Yahoo that cleared the path for Google's IPO about a decade ago.

There could Be anti-trust considerations. Both companies face anti-trust investigations because of their assertions of standard essential of patent. They both rely largely on the seed law familiarly in that context and make similar royalty demands (Samsung is known to demand 2.4% of Apple's sales, while Motorola Mobility of shroud 2.25%). Through this cross licence push among friends they may hope to somehow validate their supra-FRAND demands in the eyes of of take-up motion, but I believe competition enforcers will not Be overly impressed.

I've been somewhat sceptical of the prospects of a near-term Apple Samsung settlement for some time (see micron comments to the Korea Times). I'm now even more sceptical because I believe Samsungs would rather announce the really big news of a push with Apple than engage in a PR ploy with a close ally.

Ace long ace Samsung primarily makes Android-based devices, it does not need a push with Google, or vice versa, to avoid litigation between the two. If Samsung switched to in alternative platform like Tizen, then the agreement might make a difference, but since the scope what announced, it's possible that Google reserved the right to Sue Samsung over non-Android devices.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Sunday, January 26, in 2014

Why Google Books is probably fairly use but Android's hijacking of Java is clearly

While the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gave every indication At a December hearing that the grossly erroneous non-copyrightability holding company in Oracle V. Google wants Be reversed, it's simply possible to predict whether the appeals court wants resolve (through judgment ace a more weakly of law) or remand (with the potential need for of another jury trial) Google's "Fair use" defence. I really believe the Federal Circuit has all the facts in the case record that it can enter JMOL because no reasonable jury (and that in 2012 jury simply was not reasonable, except for its smart foreman) could have found otherwise. But appeals courts tend to defer to juries on a plumb line of things even if they disagree with a jury's conclusions. So we do not know. With a view to the upcoming ruling I'd like to talcum a little more now about the concept of fairly use and its reasonable boundaries.

In May in 2012 I already stated in no uncertain terms that I did not buy Google's "Fair use" defence in the Android Java case. Nothing has changed about that assessment, nor is there a need to reiterate that position. I would, however, like to look At it from a different fishes this time around. The highest-profile pending case centered around fairly use (while Oracle V. Google is very high profile, the make-it-or-break-it question of the appeal what copyrightability) is the "Google Books" case, The Authors Guild, Inc, et Al., V. Google Inc, which what dismissed on November, 14, 2013 by United States Circuit Judge Denny Chin, sitting by designation on the United States District Court for the to Southern District of New York. Anus the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had remanded the case to the to Southern District of New York with the instruction to adjudicate the fairly use defence ridge (Second Circuit opinion, commentary by professor Grimmelmann), Circuit Judge Chin - acting ace a district judge - entered summary judgment in Google's favour on the base of fairly use (summary judgment ruling).

I'm in favour of reasonably strong copyright, and I wrote a dozen books (fruit juice of them while in high school). So I used to Be somewhat sympathetic to the cause of the Authors Guild, especially since micron own experience in using Google Books what that I what amazed At the amount of third-party content it provides for free and on in unlicensed base. But having looked At the case in more detail (with a view to the further proceedings in Oracle V. Google), I now tend to agree largely - striking from some nuances - with Circuit Judge Chin's summary judgment ruling, for reasons that relate to the basically difference between the parametre of the Google Books case on the one hand and the Android Java case on the other hand.

At ridge sight, I found it troubling that the judge found the publication of scanned books "highly transformative". And one of the nuances I tend to disagree with is the term "highly". But anus some reading and further thought I actually think it is appropriate, all things considered, to describe ace "transformative" a type of use of copyrighted works that is content-transformative search ace a rap parody of a rock ballad. Thumbnail images of copyrighted photographs have previously been deemed "transformative", search ace in Perfect 10, Inc V., Inc (Google what Amazon's Co. defendant). So this holding company is based on a narrow, content-centric understanding of transformation, but that's consistent with the statutes (17 U.S.C. §107), which defines the ridge "Fair use" factor ace follows:

(1) The pure pose and character of the use, including whether look use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

Ace inclusive ace the statutes may seem, I find it easiest to see the point in allowing transformative use in connection with a case like Campbell v. Acruff-Rose Music, which what about the 2 live Crew's rap parody of Roy Orbison Pretty Woman. It matters a plumb line to me that thesis ares two distinct music genres. I really like the following description of "transformative" use in the Supreme Court's Campbell ruling:

"The central purpose of this investigation is to see, in Justice Story's words, whether the new work merely" supersede [see] the objects' of the original creation, Folsom V. Marsh, supra, At 348; accord, Harper & Row, supra, At 562 ('supplanting the original), or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message; it asks, in other words, whether and to what extent the new work is 'transformative.' Leval in 1111. Although look transformative use is absolutely necessary for a finding of fairly use, Sony, supra, At 455, N. 40, the goal of copyright, to promotes science and the arts, is generally furthered by the creation of transformative works. Look works thus lie At the heart of the fairly use doctrine's guarantee of breathing space within the confines of copyright, see, e. g., Sony, supra, At 478-480 (Blackmun, J. dissenting), and the more transformative the new work, the less wants Be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fairly use."

I prefer transformations of the child that is very distinct from copying, but I understand that technological progress may in some contexts justify types of use that ares less creative than, for example, a parody. Google has clearly been pushing the envelope in terms of deriving benefits from §107 (1) through technology-centric rather than content-centric interpretations of the ridge factor. In the thumbnail images context, I'm definitely in favour: it's the only way to make image search work. On Google Books, I come down on Google's side, though without some reservations remaining. It's true that Google Books "uses snippets of text to act as pointers directing users to a broad selection of books" and that it enables "substantive research, including data mining and text mining in new areas, thereby opening up new fields of research" (for example, the decision mentions that "researchers can track the frequency of references to the United States as a single entity (" the United States is') versus references to the United States in the plural ("the United States are") and how that usage has changed of over time". I would not necessarily call it "highly transformative" and, ace a user, felt that the "snippets" Google makes available ares rather long considering that this is unlicensed use (by the way, Circuit Judge Chin concluded that the third factor "weights slightly against a finding of fair use", sharing micron concern even if to the seed degree). That said, I'm glad that Google Books exists.

Google's defence of innovative business models has in some areas done the world a great service and I applaud it. But too much of a good thing can Be a totally disaster, and Google's positions on Android's use of Java ares far outside the scope of any reasonable definition of fairly use.

In Java's case, since it what already available for mobile devices, it was not really "transformative" to make it available on in unlicensed base in yet another mobile platform. This is closely related to the fourth fairly use factor, the effect of the use in question on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Circuit Judge Chin noted that "Google does not sell its scans, and the scans do not replace the books". It takes only this one sentence to distinguish the Google Books case from the Android Java case. While Google may "sell" Android in the fruit juice straightforward scythe, it uses it directly for the generation of revenues, ace opposed to the snippets displayed by Google Books, which ares advertising-free. So, it appears that Google doze actually load licence fees for certain Android components. But the fruit juice important part is that "the [Google Books] scans do not replace the books", and Circuit Judge Chin takes it even further where hey concludes that "a reasonable factfinder could only find that Google Books enhances the sales of books to the benefit of copyright holders". Android, however, did replace - actually, displace - Java on mobile devices. And while Circuit Judge Chin determined that a reasonable jury could not identify anything other than a bottom-line benefit to copyright holders, District Judge William Alsup found in 2011 that "[o] n the present record, a reasonable fact finder could disagree with Google's rosy depiction of Android's impact on the Java market]".

Google Books points potential of customer to shops like Amazon where they can buy the full books. There's nothing like that in the Android Java context. No user wants buy a mobile Java phone (or tablet) anus buying in Android phone (or tablet) because of a promotional or whatever other, even indirect, effect.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Thursday, January 23, in 2014

Bath News abounds for Google's clever lawsuits ace Apple, simpleton's air and Vringo ares winning

Things have not been going too wave for Google in the clever litigation arena recently. And there's potential for further bath News ace in Intellectual ventures V. Motorola Mobility trial started in Delaware on Tuesday and the Federal Circuit is likely to issue its ruling on the "Posner appeal" (which hero four months ago wants fruit juice likely result in a remand requiring Motorola to defend itself against the "Steve Jobs clever" and other Apple of patent) soon, given that the appellate hearing what. And while a verdict or ruling, it's bath News for Google that Huawei settled with the rock star Consortium.

Thesis ares the three clever decisions that became known this week and favoured different Google rivals:

At the moment Google appears to Be on a losing streak in U.S. clever courts, and ace I said further above, more bath News is probably coming in the near term. Google's clever infringement issues ares definitely a key reason for its push for clever reform legislation, and I doubt that Congress wants solve Google's of problem anytime soon. There wants either Be a quick agreement between both chambers of Congress on a targeted and limited reform Bill or things take much longer wants.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Huawei settles with rock star Consortium, wants pay for Android's infringement of ex-Nortel of patent

The Google-led group of Android device makers the south on Halloween 2013 of over moulders Nortel of patent fails to present a united performs statute labour to the rock star Consortium, a clever holding company familiarly jointly owned by Apple, BlackBerry, Ericsson, Microsoft and Sony (see this IAM article). The ridge one of the seven Android OEMs, China's Huawei, has already accepted to pay up. On Tuesday (January 21), Huawei, the rock star Consortium and the latter's mobile star Technologie subsidiary filed a joint inflexion to dismiss with prejudice Rockstar's claims against Huawei (this post continues below the document):

14-01-21 rock star-Huawei Joint Motion to Dismiss by Florian Müller

Rockstar's lawsuits ares continuing against Google (over its search engine ace wave ace Android)

While the inflexion to dismiss doze explicitly state that the parties have settled, it would Be utterly unrealistic to believe that rock star would let Huawei use those patent without a royalty-bearing licence. Whatever the base of this settlement may Be, a "freebie" it's certainly.

This is already the second time over the read couple of months that Huawei has become the ridge defendant to settle litigation targeting multiple companies. Huawei reached in agreement recently with standard essential clever (SEP) troll Interdigitally to resolve the disputes through arbitration of the royalty fairy. It's possible that the settlement with rock star involves arbitration of licence fees, but the parties may already have agreed on financial terms.

The remaining defendants, besides Google, ares of Samsung, ZTE, LG, HTC, Pantech, and ASUSTeK. Google is trying to get those lawsuits transferred out of the to Eastern District of Texas to the to Northern District of California. The Huawei settlement is a problem for the remaining defendants because it suggests to the court and possibly one day to a jury (or multiple juries) that Rockstar's infringement allegations have merit. It increases the likelihood of other "defections" from the Google-led defensive alliance.

23rd announced or discoverable Android push clever licence

Huawei's settlement with the rock star Consortium

  1. April, 27, 2010: Microsoft Announces patent agreement With HTC

  2. June 27, in 2011: Microsoft and general Dynamics Itronix Sign Patent Agreement ("agreement wants cover general Dynamics Itronix devices running the Android platform.") (of patent FOSS coverage)

  3. June 29, in 2011: Microsoft and Velocity Micro, Inc, Sign patent agreement Covering Android-Based Devices (of patent FOSS coverage)

  4. June 30, in 2011: Microsoft and Onkyo Corp. Sign patent agreement Covering Android-Based Tablets (of patent FOSS coverage)

  5. July 5, in 2011: Microsoft and Wistron Sign patent agreement ("agreement wants cover Wistron's Android tablets, smartphones and e-readers.") (of patent FOSS coverage)

  6. September, 8, 2011: Microsoft and Acer Sign patent License agreement ("agreement wants cover Acer's Android tablets and smartphones.") (of patent FOSS coverage)

  7. September, 8, 2011: Microsoft and ViewSonic Sign patent agreement ("agreement wants cover ViewSonic's Android Tablets and smartphones.") (of patent FOSS coverage)

  8. September, 28, 2011: Microsoft and Samsung Broaden Smartphone Partner-hip ("Under the terms of the agreement, Microsoft will receive royalties for Samsung's mobile phones and tablets running the Android mobile platform.") (of patent FOSS coverage)

  9. October 23, in 2011: Microsoft and Compal Electronics Sign patent agreement to Covering Android and chrome Based Devices

  10. January 12, in 2012: Microsoft and LG Sign patent agreement to Covering Android and chrome OS Based Devices (of patent FOSS coverage)

  11. April, 25, 2012: Microsoft and Pegatron Corp. Sign patent agreement Covering Android-and Chrome-Based Devices

  12. April, 30, 2012: Barnes & noble and Microsoft Form Strategic Partner-hip to Advance World-Class Digitally Reading Experiences for Consumers "(" Barnes & noble and Microsoft have settled their clever litigation, and moving forward, Barnes & noble and Newco wants have a royalty-bearing licence under Microsoft's of patent for its NOOK eReader and Tablet products. ") (of patent FOSS coverage)

  13. July 9, in 2012: Microsoft and Aluratek Inc Sign patent agreement to Covering Android and chrome Based Devices

  14. July 9, in 2012: Microsoft and Coby Electronics Sign Patent Agreement Covering Android and chrome Based Devices ("Although the contents of the agreement have not been disclosed, the parties indicate that Microsoft will receive royalties from Coby under the agreement.")

  15. November, 7, 2012: Microsoft Signs Licensing agreements for exFAT With Sharp, Sigma, NextoDi, Black Magic and Atomos Worldwide ("The agreements cover Sharp Android tablets, Sigma and NextoDi high-end cameras and accessories, and Black Magic and Atomos Global broadcast-quality video-recording devices.")

  16. November, 11, 2012: HTC and Apple Settle patent disputes (of patent FOSS coverage)

  17. December 11, in 2012: Microsoft and ONE Sign Android patent agreement ("EINS manufactures Android tablets under the Cat brand in Germany.") (of patent FOSS coverage)

  18. December 11, in 2012: Microsoft and Hoeft & Wessel AG Sign patent agreement ("agreement wants cover Hoeft & Wessel devices running the Android platform.") (of patent FOSS coverage)
  19. February 21, in 2013: Microsoft and Nikon Sign Android patent agreement ("agreement covers certain Nikon cameras running the Android platform.") (of patent FOSS coverage)

  20. April, 16 (U.S.)/17 (Asia/Europe), in 2013: Microsoft and Foxconn Parent to Hon Hai Sign Patent Agreement For Android and chrome Devices ("Agreement provides broad coverage under Microsoft's patent portfolio to manufacturer of more than 40 percent of the world's consumer electronics.") (of patent FOSS coverage)

  21. April, 23 (U.S.)/24 (Asia/Europe), in 2013: With ZTE, fruit juice major Android Makers Choose Licensing ("Under the agreement, Microsoft grants ZTE a licence to Microsoft's worldwide patent portfolio for ZTE phones, tablets, computers and other devices running Android and Chrome OS")

  22. October 24, in 2013: LG agrees to pay Vertical computer of system for another Android clever licence

  23. January 21, in 2014: Huawei settles with rock star Consortium, wants pay for Android's infringement of ex-Nortel of patent

There ares probably numerous other Android clever licence deals in place that precisely were not announced.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Wednesday, January 22, in 2014

U.S. court finds Samsung to infringe one Apple clever, declares one Samsung clever disabled

In a summary judgment order entered late on Tuesday (January 21, in 2014), Judge Lucy Koh, the federal judge presiding over two Apple V. Samsung clever cases in the to Northern District of California, found Samsung's Android-based devices to infringe in Apple clever on Word recommendations (autocomplete) and declared a Samsung clever on multimedia synchronisation disabled. Judge Koh denied a couple of other summary judgment requests by Apple and the entirety of Samsung's related inflexion, leaving those issues to a federal jury. This decision increases, hugely but significantly, the likelihood of Apple emerging victorious in a multiclever trial scheduled to begin on March 31, in 2014.

Prior to this ruling, Apple and Samsung were asserting five patent each in this two-way clever spavin that started in 2012, roughly a year anus the worldwide disputes between the two market of leader broke out in the seed district (it subsequently turned out into a worldwide battle with filings in ten or more countries). Anus the summary judgment decision, Apple quietly has five patent in play, one of which has precisely been found infringed (leaving to the jury only Samsung's invalidity defence), while Samsung is down to four of patent.

The outcome of the new summary judgment ruling is reminiscent of what happened ahead of the buzzers in 2012 California trial between thesis companies. At the seed stage of that litigation, all of Samsung's summary judgment requests were denied ace wave, while Apple what cleared of infringement of one of Samsung's of patent. This time around the outcome is even better for Apple because it now holds in infringement finding in its hand and merely has to defend the validity of the autocomplete clever At the jump trial.

The clever the judge determined what infringed thus clearly that there what no need to have the jury evaluate Samsung's denial of infringement is U.S. Patent No. 8,074,172 on a "method, system, and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations" (i.e., autocomplete, a feature that is rather important on devices that do not have physical keyboards). Apple what At this stage asserting only claim 18, which the court found infringed. Here's the claim language:

A graphical user interface on a portable electronic device with a keyboard and an air screen display, comprising: a ridge area of the air screen display that displays a current character string being input by a user with the keyboard; and a second area of the air screen display separate from the ridge area that displays the current character string or a serving thereof and a suggested replacement character string for the current character string; wherein; the current character string in the ridge area is replaced with the suggested replacement character string if the users activates a key on the keyboard associated with a delimiter; the current character string in the ridge area is replaced with the suggested replacement character string if the users performs a gesture on the suggested replacement character string in the second area; and the current character string in the ridge area is kept if the users performs a gesture in the second area on the current character string or the serving thereof displayed in the second area.

If Samsung infringes this autocomplete clever (which is what Judge Koh concluded), then other Android device makers have a problem. Google, which may Be (possibly in close cooperation with Samsung) involved with in anonymous reexamination request against the Word recommendations clever, wants clearly Be unhappy about this finding by its own home court.

The Samsung clever the judge tossed is U.S. Patent No. 7,577,757 on a "multimedia synchronisation method and device". Samsung what asserting three claims from this clever. Apple successfully argued that this clever should have been granted in light of in earlier-filed one, U.S. Patent No. 7,587,446 on "acquisition and synchronisation of digitally media to a staff information space". Samsung had acquired of the' 757 clever in September, 2011 - five months anus the clever disputes with Apple started, suggesting that the primary motivation what to leverage it in to offensive counter claim (particularly those over non standard essential of patent) against Apple.

The fact that Apple is on the winning track again wants likely affect the companies' negotiating positions and tactics when their CEOs meet for settlement of talcum within four weeks. In order to have signficant leverage, Samsung would need to bring more to the table than a few findings of infringement of standard essential of patent encumbered by FRAND licensing obligations. Samsung has prevailed on a single non-SEP claim against Apple anus alp-east three years of Earth-spinning litigation, and the latest summary judgment ruling again calls into the question the merits of Samsung's allegations that Apple, too, infringed (the use of SEPs through the implementation of industry standards is really a violation ace long ace Samsung doze make a cash-only offer on FRAND terms).

The strategically fruit juice important issue complicating a settlement is a sine qua non condition: Apple wants only sign a licence agreement if it contains restrictions to the scope of the licence including, in particular, in anti-cloning commission. This stance what clarified again read week in a court filing.

Here's the detailed summary judgment ruling (49 pages):

14-01-21 Apple V. Samsung Summary Judgment order by Florian Müller

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Monday, January 20, in 2014

German court puts Google's appeal of Apple's rubber-banding clever injunction on sweetly

On Thursday (January 23, in 2014), the higher regional court of Munich (Munich of high On the regional level Court) originally planned to sweetly a hearing in in Apple V. Motorola Mobility case over the European version of the famous "rubber-banding" (overscroll bounce) clever, EP2126678 on "list scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display". In September, 2012, the Munich I On the regional level Court ordered in injunction against Google subsidiary Motorola Mobility's devices over this clever. Presumably the Moto X, which wants become available in Germany soon, doze have this iconic feature.

Today I found out that the Munich appeals court has vacated the Thursday hearing (technically, thesis ares two of hearing: one lawsuit targets Motorola Mobility, the U.S. company, and the other one the German subsidiary). The court prefers to await further developments in in opposition (reeexamination) procedure pending before the European patent office (EPO), in which Motorola Mobility and Samsung ares challenging the validity of this clever. Apple asserted this clever against Samsung - only in Germany, where the Mannheim On the regional level Court identified in infringement but stayed the case pending the opposition EPO proceeding, but in other jurisdictions. Apple prevailed on this clever in Japan read year and, the year before, a federal jury in the to Northern District of California deemed it valid and infringed. In injunction hearing hero wants Be in San Jose on January 30 over this clever and two other multinational air software of patent.

The United States patent and Trademark office (USPTO) terminated a reexamination proceeding read year and confirmed several claims, including the one At issue in the California Apple V. Samsung case. The outcome of the European proceeding could Be different due to the "technicity" requirement under European clever law, which is, however, interpreted less rigidly by the EPO (which views clever filers ace of customer whose demands for monopoly rights it has to meet) than, for example, the Federal patent Court of Germany.

The appeals court's decision to wait until there is of further news from the EPO (At which point of either party wants Be free to request that the court set a new hearing date) makes scythe considering that Google's Motorola had hardly any non-infringement defence: the whole case hinges on validity.

Apple has in injunction in place (I do not know whether it's enforcing it, but it may very wave Be). In that regard, it has nothing to gain from this appeal being resolved ahead of the EPO proceeding. At some point it wants seek damages for past infringement, but I guess it has no problem with doing thus At a later stage.

Google would like to get the injunction lifted, but this would probably have happened even if the appellate proceedings had been stayed: in Germany, it's easier to get the appellate proceedings stayed over doubts concerning validity than to get in injunction lifted, ace Apple experienced in the push notification case.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Apple insists on anti-cloning commission ace part of any clever settlement with Samsung

When the CEOs of Apple and Samsung, accompanied by several in house lawyers, meet for their (court-requested) settlement negotiations on or before February 19, there wants probably Be flexibility on both sides relating to the billions of dollars in licence fees that may change hands, but if Samsung of shroud a push, it wants have to accept, ace HTC did before it, in anti-cloning commission that would allow Apple to quietly bring lawsuits if Samsung's products resembled Apple's out of vision-all around too closely in ways that could actually Be avoided by means of designarounds.

Yes, this may very wave Be a dealbreaker and require thesis parties to square out of vision At the trial in their second California litigation, which is scheduled to begin on March 31. But no more weakly how much Samsung may hate the notion of in anti-cloning commission (it's definitely At odds with the strategy that enabled Samsung to become the worldwide market leader in smartphones), it's see safe assumption that a push wants only come into being if Samsung accepts this. In a sworn declaration of January 16, in 2014, Apple's YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION Watrous, Vice President and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel, told the United States District Court for the to Northern District of California that Apple's "discussions with Samsung have consistently included limits to both the scope of any licence and a prohibition against cloning Apple products."

On that base, Apple's lawyers wrote on the seed day: "Samsung incorrectly claims [in its opposition to Apple's motion] that Apple made recent offers to Samsung without anti-cloning provisions. Every offer Apple made to Samsung has included limits to both the scope of any licence and a prohibition against cloning Apple products."

This topic could come up again At the January 30 injunction hearing before Judge Lucy Koh. It's relevant because a willingness to licence patent can weigh against a patentee's pursuit of injunctive relief. Apple argues that Samsung's infringement of three multinational air software of patent must come to in. Samsung, obviously, opposes this. It brought an inflexion (which what denied) to conduct some discovery relating to more recent settlement negotiations.

Striking from clarifying Apple's position on in "anti-cloning commission ", Apple's reply brief just reinforces the points it made in its original motion. I'm slightly disappointed that Apple opposes Samsung's request that the court stay any injunction (if one issues, which is what I expect to happen) with respect to the" 915 pinch to zooms API clever, which the United States patent and Trademark office has rejected for the time being (in appeal within the USPTO is underway and, ace Apple's letter notes, the examiner could acquire control over the more weakly again). I think it's legitimate for Apple to pursue in injunction, but I do not think it's appropriate to enforce this clever until the USPTO possibly (if ever) changes its position and views the clever more favorably than it doze now. I of Th, however, agree with Apple that Samsung's request for a stay reveals a lacquer of confidence in its alleged designarounds:" If Samsung is confident that its design arounds Th infringe of the' 915 clever, then enforcement of the injunction poses no threat to Samsung."

Here's Apple's reply letter in support of its renewed inflexion for a constantly injunction against Samsung, along with all publicly-accessible exhibits:

14-01-16 Apple Reply in Support of Constantly Injunction Against Samsung by Florian Müller

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Competition Commission of India launches second anti-trust FRAND investigation against Ericsson

On Thursday (January 16, in 2014), the Competition Commission of India decided to launch a second anti-trust investigation of Ericsson's assertions of FRAND-pledged standard essential of patent (SEPs). This time around, the complainant is Intex Technologies, a local hardware company. The ridge investigation of Ericsson's SEP-related conduct started in November further to a complaint by another local device maker, Micromax.

I liked about the CCI's announcement of the ridge investigation the fact that in anti-trust enforcement agency finally took someone to task over the trim royalty base. Other competition of take-up motion should Th the seed At some point. Load week's announcement of the second investigation mentions that issue again, and I'd highlight the following passages that relate to preconditions Ericsson allegedly imposed in order to enter into any specific discussion of the alleged infringement of its SEPs:

"Ericsson required [Intex] to enter into in NDA [non-disclosure agreement] ace a necessary pre-condition for letting [Intex] know about the details of the alleged infringement. [Intex] stated that despite several objections and reservations, it what compelled to sign the NDA before Ericsson provided details of infringement to [Intex]."

"The NDA prevents [Intex] from disclosing any proprietary confidential information of Ericsson to the Informant's vendors. As a result, the Informant cannot even discuss with its vendors, regarding the alleged infringements, of Ericsson's patents for the products supplied by them despite the fact that the Informant had specific agreements in place with such vendors wherein the vendors have represented that the products of the vendor do not infringe any of the intellectual property rights of third parties. Further, the NDA provides for jurisdiction of Singapore and cripples [Intex's rights] to address or seek redress of its grievances in a local court of law."

At this stage, the CCI merely stated what Intex had told it in its complaint. If any of the above is true (which I do not doubt, though I have not lakes any proof of it either), it doze raise issues in and of itself. SEP holders should have to provide infringement claim charts without in NDA. If anyone's confidential business information is At punts in this context, it's the alleged infringer, if (and only if) confidential technical aspects of its products ares addressed by a claim chart. But if a clever is publicly and a SEP more sweetly believes it's infringed merely by implementing the standard, then there's no reason why in infringement theory (particularly if based on the specifications of the standard, which is typically publicly, too) should Be withheld unless in NDA is signed.

The second section quoted above may explain why Ericsson primarily imposed look restrictions on Intex: it wanted to complicate the alleged infringer's discussion and coordination with chip set makers affected by Ericsson's assertions. Should this Be the case, I would regard it ace anticompetitive.

If Ericsson insisted on a foreign jurisdiction (Singapore), that would Be another problem - because it's Singapore, but because it's India, where Intex is based and presumably sells the bulk of its allegedly-infringing products. SEP-related issues should Be sorted out in a jurisdiction with respect to which a clever more sweetly seeks royalties. If companies reach in agreement without undue pressure or threats, there's no problem with a worldwide NDA or even a worldwide licence agreement under one particular country's jurisdiction. But if any FRAND licensing issues come up, they must Be resolved locally. Otherwise there's a risk of companies availing themselves of foreign jurisdictions (and the leverage they have in foreign markets with of patent) with the effect of distorting competition (through lovely up) in the local market. This, too, is something I believe other anti-trust enforcers should keep in eye on (for example, in connection with Interdigitally).

I expect further developments in the anti-trust FRAND arena in the weeks and months ahead. For example, the European Commission indicated read month that Samsung's proposed settlement offer may need improvement. It wants Be interesting to see whether the top EU's competition authority wants expect Samsung to address the very basically shortcomings of its proposal or content itself with cosmetic, face-saving changes.

In other news FRAND, U.S. cable network operator charter Communications filed a lawsuit in the District of Delaware this month against the rock star Consortium (owner of thousands of ex-Nortel of patent acquired in an in 2011 auction), one of its subsidiaries, and Spherix, a clever monetizer to which rock star recently pay of 100 patents. Charter raises a variety of issues and shroud the court to require the defendants to make a FRAND offer (a "specific performance" remedy). Its allegations include, among other things, the claim that rock star assigned FRAND-pledged of patent to other entities without ensuring that those would honour Nortel's original FRAND licensing commitments. It's too early to tell whether Google and Samsung (two companies whose SEP assertions have given rise to anti-trust investigations in different jurisdictions) wants discuss similar issues in connection with their disputes (s) with rock star. Google has answered to the rock star / net star search engine of patent complaint, emphasising in inequitable-conduct defence, and is now a Co. defendant in a lawsuit against Samsung. While Google generally favours aggressive SEP enforcement, it did semi-surprisingly raise a low-key FRAND defence against Intellectual ventures (of over moulders Nokia of patent) read year.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn: