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…
Tag Archive for Apple
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…
Qualcomm Has Been Violating Its Obligation To License Competitors For Years
by Josh Landau •
Today, Judge Koh issued an important ruling in the FTC v. Qualcomm litigation centered on Qualcomm’s anti-competitive trade practices. Ruling on a motion for partial summary judgment, Judge Koh determined that Qualcomm is obligated to license its standard-essential patents to anyone who asks for a license. Qualcomm admits that it refuses to license other modem…
ITC: No Public Interest In Excluding Qualcomm Competitors
by Josh Landau •
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…
Comments from Samsung Jurors Drive Home The Flaws In Design Patents
by Josh Landau •
A few weeks back, I outlined some of the problems created when design patent law is interpreted in negative ways. One particular issue? The negative incentives created if the article of manufacture to which icon patents are applied is the entire device. When I wrote that post, these were still hypotheticals. A sole juror is…
Jury Decides Icon Patents Should Award Profits On Entire Phone
by Josh Landau •
Yesterday, after almost four days of deliberation, the Apple v. Samsung jury decided Samsung owed Apple over $500 million of Samsung’s profits. Faced with an artificial and unsound test, the jurors struggled to understand just what they were supposed to do. Ultimately, the jurors awarded Apple profits on the entire Samsung device for Apple’s…
Icon Patents Shouldn’t Entitle The Patent Owner To Profits On The Whole Device
by Josh Landau •
An important part of the Apple v. Samsung trial is about the exterior casing design patents. But those aren’t the only design patents at issue—the other design patent in the case covers a colorful grid of icons with particular characteristics like rounded corners and variable icons: As a reminder, a design patent covers a “new,…
Did You Buy Your Car Just Because Of The Cup Holder?
by Josh Landau •
Opening arguments in Apple v. Samsung started this morning. While round six of the long-running case deals with smartphone patents, the potential impacts range much further. As I noted in my post yesterday, a rule of design patent damages that allows patentees to receive the total profits on the entire product even though the design…
Apple v. Samsung, Round Six
by Josh Landau •
A district court trial. A retrial, after part of the verdict was vacated. An appeal to the Federal Circuit. A Supreme Court opinion with a remand to the Federal Circuit. A remand from the Federal Circuit back to the district court. Seven years after Apple originally filed suit against Samsung, we’re right back in Judge…