Joe Matal is a former Acting Director and Acting Solicitor of the USPTO and a current partner at Haynes and Boone, where he specializes in PTAB trials and Federal Circuit appeals. I have written several times about the $2.2 billion verdict in the VLSI v. Intel case. The case is extraordinary not just because of…
Tag Archive for Intel
Discretionary Denials at the PTAB Continue to Rise, Benefit NPEs
by Josh Landau •
According to new data from Unified Patents, the rise in discretionary denials at the PTAB is showing no signs of slowing down. In 2019, there were 6 denials based on co-pending litigation (so-called § 314(a) or Fintiv denials). In these denials, the PTAB decides not to institute an inter partes review based primarily on related…
One Case, All The Problems: VLSI v. Intel Exemplifies Current Issues In Patent Litigation
by Josh Landau •
Patent litigation suffers from a number of issues at present. Hedge funds backing non-practicing entities (NPEs) in order to chase a share of billion-dollar judgments. Plaintiffs using damages methodologies that have little to no relation to the reality of the patent system in order to obtain those billion dollar judgments. NPEs asserting patents that they…
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…
Anything Qualcomm Can Do, Huawei Can Do (Better?)
by Josh Landau •
With the settlement of the Apple-Qualcomm litigation, the fate of the FTC’s litigation against Qualcomm has become the next topic of interest in the standard-essential patent (SEP) sphere. There are a host of reasons why the FTC shouldn’t settle that relate to concerns about Qualcomm’s behavior and its impact on competition and consumers. But beyond…
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…
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…
Iancu’s First Hearing Answers Questions, Leaves More Open
by Josh Landau •
On Wednesday, April 18, new USPTO Director Andrei Iancu appeared for his first oversight hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Director was more open with the Committee compared to his confirmation process, leading to some interesting discussions. Algorithms Are Already Patentable A number of questions focused on the issue of patentable subject…
Apple v. Qualcomm – Double Dipping and Breaking Promises
by Josh Landau •
Back in January, Patent Progress wrote about lawsuits filed against Qualcomm by the FTC and by Apple. Today, Apple filed an amended complaint against Qualcomm, based in part on new law resulting from the Supreme Court’s Lexmark decision on patent exhaustion. A High Water Lexmark In Patent Exhaustion The Lexmark case, while important, is actually…
Samsung v. Apple at the ITC – Summarizing the Public Interest Briefs
by Brendan Coffman •
On November 19 the ITC announced that the full Commission would review the Final Initial Determination in Investigation 337-TA-794, Samsung v. Apple. The ALJ had determined that there was no infringement by Apple of Samsung’s asserted patents, which Samsung has declared as standard essential patents covering technology implemented by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). …