Tag Archive for Abusive Patent Litigation

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.

Huawei Moves Ahead With Aggressive Licensing Posture

Reports emerged today that Huawei has demanded over $1 billion in patent license payments from Verizon for its cellular network patents. As I wrote in April, Huawei has the potential to abuse its strong position in cellular network patents.  As required by international agreements, the U.S. patent system doesn’t discriminate between domestic and foreign patent…

Sunshine: Eclipse Promises Not To Sue Californians

Remember Shipping and Transit?  The notorious NPE went bankrupt last year after its campaign against everyone from transit app developers to city transit authorities hit a few potholes.  Following a decade-long licensing and litigation campaign leveraging the high cost of patent litigation, including one year in which it filed more patent suits than anyone else,…

Don’t Buy Into Qualcomm’s Attempts To Distract From Its Anti-Competitive Behavior

There’s been a lot of discussion about Qualcomm’s recent Chinese injunction against Apple.  But that’s a distraction—the real story is, and remains, the trio of lawsuits against Qualcomm for anti-competitive practices that will be conducted over the first half of 2019.  First, in January, the Federal Trade Commission’s lawsuit. Next, in April, Apple’s lawsuit. And…

Founders On Patents: Madison On The Dangers Of Patents

James Madison is credited with introducing the Patent and Copyright Clause to the Constitution, and defended that clause in Federalist 43, stating “[t]he utility of this power will scarcely be questioned.”  But he was well aware that there were dangers to the power, writing in his own papers that the patent monopoly could produce more…

CCIA Files Additional Comments In Qualcomm ITC Case

Last June, CCIA filed comments on the public interest issues implicated by Qualcomm’s ITC complaint against Apple.  (The ITC is required to take into account whether the public interest would be harmed by exclusion.)   Last month, the ITC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) agreed with our comments, determining that an exclusion order was not in…

ITC: No Public Interest In Excluding Qualcomm Competitors

Over a year ago, I filed comments at the International Trade Commission (ITC).  Those comments explained why it went against the public interest to exclude Qualcomm’s competitors products from the U.S. market based on Qualcomm’s patent infringement allegations. Last week, the ITC administrative law judge in charge of the case agreed. What’s At Stake? About…

Yet More Evidence That NPEs Are Harmful To Innovation

Profs. Cohen, Gurun, and Kominers first published a paper collecting evidence of the impacts of NPEs on innovation in 2014.  Recently, they updated the paper, incorporating additional evidence and research from the past four years.  The key takeaways? “NPE litigation has a real negative impact on innovation at targeted firms: firms substantially reduce their innovative…

ITC Institutes An Investigation… Based On An NPE’s Complaint

Yesterday, the International Trade Commission (ITC) instituted an investigation based on a complaint filed by an apparent non-practicing entity (NPE), SIPCO.  The ITC, as Patent Progress has covered in the past [1][2], is intended to protect American manufacturers from unfair foreign competition. So why did the ITC institute an investigation of American companies filed by…