The process of claim construction—interpreting the meaning of the words used in a patent claim—can be confusing at the best of times. At its worst, as in the Federal Circuit’s Dupont v. Unifrax decision this week, it most closely resembles an exchange from Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking Glass.”
Apple and Qualcomm have reached a global settlement to the wide-ranging dispute between the two companies. Stretching from China to the UK to the US, in a range of forums in various countries, Apple had accused Qualcomm of anti-competitive conduct in patent licensing, while Qualcomm brought a grab-bag of counterclaims. All of that is over.…
On Monday, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the Saint Regis Mohawk v. Mylan case, bringing to a close a nearly 18-month-long attempt to sell tribal sovereign immunity as a shield against the inter partes review (IPR) process.
Jacqueline Yin is a Legal Fellow at the Computer & Communications Industry Association. This post is also online at Project DisCo. In the U.S., antitrust laws are typically enforced by both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). For example, the DOJ and FTC share the authority to enforce the…
Thomas Jefferson neatly summarized the core of the debate on at least one aspect of patentable subject matter, over 200 years ago.
An article from Prof. Chris Beauchamp, newly published in the Vanderbilt Law Review and titled “Repealing Patents”, examines the history of Founding-era patent revocation. It’s a complex story, influenced by the changing character of the pre-1836 patent system, and reveals that there did seem to be a belief in a public interest in the invalidation…
In the wake of Qualcomm’s loss in front of the full International Trade Commission (ITC) yesterday, Qualcomm released a statement that doesn’t match up with the facts. Here’s what Qualcomm had to say: The implication is that the jury found the patent valid, which would be inconsistent with the ITC’s finding—but that’s not what happened.…
International Trade Commission (ITC) Administrative Law Judge McNamara issued a Notice of Issuance of Initial Determination today, explaining that, based on a complaint from Qualcomm, she had found that Apple infringed claim 1 (but not claim 8) of U.S. Pat. No. 8,063,674, and that the claim was valid. Based on that, she stated that she…
At last week’s Senate Judiciary IP Subcommittee hearing, questioners referenced two studies. The first, on multiple IPR petitions, was conducted by Steve Carlson and Ryan Schultz of Robins Kaplan. The second, on venture capital and § 101, was conducted by Prof. David Taylor of SMU. But, as Twain said in a somewhat more colorful form,…
Last week, the first patent jury trial between Qualcomm and Apple concluded, with the jury deciding that Apple had infringed three Qualcomm patents and awarding Qualcomm damages. Outside of Qualcomm’s hometown jury in San Diego, though, things aren’t going so well for Qualcomm.
