The PTAB’s recent institution decisions in petitions filed against US5,796,183, a touchscreen patent owned by Nartron, are useful in understanding how the PTAB can be expected to address other situations with multiple simultaneous petitions, especially when a later petitioner may be able to benefit from a decision on an earlier petition.
Tag Archive for Apple
Qualcomm’s Petard: Apple Acquires Modem Business From Intel
by Josh Landau •
Yesterday, Apple officially announced its acquisition of Intel’s smartphone modem unit. Apple will receive a variety of assets from Intel, including patents, as well as a significant portion of Intel’s employees dedicated to wireless modem technology. Intel retains the ability to develop 5G systems for non-smartphone applications like PCs, Internet of Things devices, and autonomous…
Apple, Qualcomm Settle—But That Doesn’t Mean The FTC Should
by Josh Landau •
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.…
Qualcomm: Inconsistent With Respect To Facts, Its Own Actions
by Josh Landau •
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.…
ITC Again Recommends Exclusion Based on a Patent Likely to be Found Invalid
by Josh Landau •
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…
Reports of Qualcomm’s Imminent Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated
by Josh Landau •
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.
No More Bites At The Apple In The Eastern District
by Josh Landau •
Last week, it was widely reported that Apple plans to close its retail stores in the Eastern District of Texas in order to avoid facing patent lawsuits in the district. Given that a single patent lawsuit can easily cost just as much as opening an Apple store (estimated at $8-10 million per store), even if…
Don’t Buy Into Qualcomm’s Attempts To Distract From Its Anti-Competitive Behavior
by Josh Landau •
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…
ITC Review of Qualcomm-Apple Decision Is Normal Practice
by Josh Landau •
Last week, the International Trade Commission (ITC) decided to review the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in the Qualcomm v. Apple case at the ITC. Unfortunately, news reports have characterized this as Qualcomm persuading the ITC to review the initial decision, as if it were unusual. It isn’t unusual at all. The Commission…
CCIA Files Additional Comments In Qualcomm ITC Case
by Josh Landau •
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…