Granted In 19 Hours

Patent examiners have an extremely hard job.  They’re given a patent application—which could be anywhere from a page long up to hundreds of pages, with patent claims ranging from a…

Read more →

Latest Blog Post

EU Competition Authorities Fine Qualcomm While DoJ Says “No Problem”

Yesterday, EU Commissioner for Competition Margarete Vestager announced the Commission’s decision to fine Qualcomm for using pricing and contract terms to force a rival out of the market.  This fine follows another EU fine issued last year for Qualcomm’s use of exclusivity payments to avoid competition.

If that sounds familiar, it’s because earlier this year, Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California found that Qualcomm had violated U.S. antitrust laws—in part, because of its use of exclusivity payments and contract terms to harm rivals.

There is one competition regulator who’s out of step with the global consensus on Qualcomm’s anti-competitive conduct.  That’s the U.S. Department of Justice’s antitrust division—led by Makan Delrahim, who formerly lobbied for Qualcomm.  As a result, the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee Antitrust Subcommittee, Rep. David Cicilline, has raised questions about Delrahim’s participation in Qualcomm matters and the ‘neat mapping’ of Delrahim’s publicly stated views to the DOJ’s position in the Qualcomm case.

In a completely unprecedented move, DOJ has filed statements in the FTC’s case arguing against the FTC’s claims that Qualcomm has violated antitrust law.  (DOJ’s attempts to interfere with the FTC’s case are not only unprecedented, but also ignore prevailing case law.)

The DOJ filings in the FTC’s case have put DOJ at odds not just with the U.S. FTC and the EU competition authorities, but with much of the rest of the world—Korea, China, and Taiwan have all fined Qualcomm.  Historically, U.S. antitrust regulators have been seen as leaders.  The DOJ’s position on standard-essential patents attempts to give a pass to behavior broadly understood to be anti-competitive, risking the U.S.’s leadership role.

Recent posts

STRONGER Patents—Bad Legislation

Yesterday, the STRONGER Patents Act of 2019 was introduced by Senators Chris Coons and Tom Cotton, along with a House companion bill introduced by Reps. Steve Stivers and Bill Foster.  The bill looks much like the last two times it was introduced [1][2], but there have been a few changes.

What Are We Really Talking About When We Talk About § 101?

After the Senate’s recent § 101 hearings, Senators Tillis and Coons seem to have remained steadfast in their belief that patentable subject matter is a real problem for U.S. innovation.  (It’s not.) But there’s a particular flaw in their belief. In a recent article penned by the two Senators, published in Law360, they state that…

Christmas (Tree Patents) In July

It’s the week of the Fourth of July and that means that it’s time to talk about Christmas trees.  Or at least about patents for creating an electric connection between different sections of artificial trees. In a pair of decisions yesterday [1][2], both dealing with a dispute between two companies over artificial Christmas trees, the…

NPEs at the ITC Illustrate Flaws in U.S. Trade Court

This week, an Irish non-practicing entity (NPE)’s lawsuit against multiple U.S. companies got the go-ahead from a U.S. trade court designed to protect U.S. companies from unfair foreign competition.  No, that sentence isn’t backwards. That’s exactly what the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) has done in the Neodrón investigation. Should the NPE win, the…