Latest Blog Post

If Qualcomm Wins At The ITC, We All Lose

This afternoon, CCIA filed comments on the public interest in the Qualcomm v. Apple case pending at the International Trade Commission (ITC).  Qualcomm sued Apple in the ITC as part of the large dispute between the two companies.  (The dispute continues to grow, having recently added a case in Germany and suits and counter-suits between Qualcomm and the contract manufacturers Apple uses.)   

As part of ITC investigations, the ITC seeks comments on how the requested relief would affect the public.  As I’ve written before, Qualcomm’s practices are anti-competitive and harmful to consumers.  And by seeking to exclude Apple from selling any iPhones that lack Qualcomm processors, Qualcomm is trying to use the ITC as a tool to maintain their anti-competitive practices in the face of lawsuits from Apple and the FTC.

That hurts Apple, sure, but it also hurts American consumers.  By trying to force exclusion, Qualcomm creates the possibility of supply shocks that would lower availability and increase prices.  They also set up conditions such that Qualcomm can continue to make competitors’ products more expensive and eventually force competitors out of the market.

That’s the public interest at stake here.  If Qualcomm gets what it wants, we all lose.

Remember Me? The ITC? You Should

A little while back I mentioned that the ITC might be the next hot venue for trolls.  The Qualcomm v. Apple case might not be the kind of “domestic industry by subpoena” case that highlights the areas of the ITC most in need of reform, but it illustrates why the ITC can be an attractive place to sue.  When you can ask the court to keep your opponent from selling any of their products (or, if you’d prefer, any of their products except the ones they have to pay you for, like Qualcomm is asking for), you have a huge stick to wield against them.  That stick can be a very effective way to force unfair settlements out of defendants.

And while the ITC might not get as much press as the Eastern District of Texas, we should all pay attention to the fact that the ITC held more patent trials in each of the last two years than any district court in the country, including the Eastern District.

That’s why when we talk about patent reform, we need to keep the ITC in mind as well.

Recent posts

Comments to the USPTO on AIA Trial Procedures

On July 6, the Computer and Communications Industry Association submitted comments on America Invents Act (AIA) trial procedures in response to the PTO’s ongoing request for such feedback, most recently at the PTAB Judicial Conference in June. Our comments, briefly summarized, are that: The inter partes review (IPR) procedure has been successful in providing an…

Bad Patents, Bad Results

Tomorrow morning, the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet is holding a hearing on “The Impact of Bad Patents on American Businesses.”   The impact of bad patents is a topic worth taking some time to examine, because it isn’t just about the direct impact from abusive troll litigation—bad patents…

The “Doubtful Validity” Type Of Case

“Death squads.”  “Hanging judge[s].” A “reign of terror.”  “Patent killing fields.” Even if we set aside the questionable taste shown in analogizing the review of patents to genocide, there’s some extremely overwrought rhetoric out there being used to describe the inter partes review (IPR) process.  The rhetoric is based on a perception that the Patent…