Tag Archive for SEP

Voting Machines, Patents, and National Security

When standard-essential patents (SEPs) are in the news, it’s usually in the context of cellular or wireless networking standards.  Maybe you’ve thought about how standards govern other things, ranging from audio-visual encoding standards like MP3 to threads on fire hydrants. But what you probably don’t think about are voting machine standards.

Apple, Qualcomm Settle—But That Doesn’t Mean The FTC Should

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.…

Delrahim Pulls DoJ Out Of FRAND-SEP Policy Guidance

In a speech today at the Berkeley Advanced Patent Law Institute, United States Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division Makan Delrahim announced that the Department of Justice was withdrawing from its 2013 guidance on remedies for standard-essential patents subject to FRAND commitments. Stating that “[t]here is no special set of rules for exclusion when…

CCIA, ACT File Amicus Brief In FTC v. Qualcomm

Yesterday, CCIA and ACT filed an amicus brief in the FTC’s case against Qualcomm in the Northern District of California.  As explained in the brief, the FRAND obligation which patent owners voluntarily agree to when they participate in the development of a standard requires the owners of standard-essential patents to license their patents on “fair,…

Qualcomm’s Settlement With Taiwanese FTC Ignores Broken Promises

Last week Qualcomm reached an agreement with the Taiwanese Fair Trade Commission (TFTC), overturning the $778 million penalty the TFTC levied in October.  Qualcomm promised to invest $700 million in Taiwan and commit to certain process safeguards over their licensing arrangements with handset makers.  In exchange, the original TFTC ruling is wiped away. Qualcomm will…

Standard Essential Patents In The News

Standard essential patents (SEPs) are in the news today in a couple ways. First, the EU antitrust authorities fined Qualcomm $1.2 billion over conduct that involved locking Apple into an exclusive supplier arrangement in order to harm competing baseband chipset makers.  The EU investigation isn’t the only place Qualcomm’s anti-competitive conduct is being challenged; they’ve…

An Analysis of the Final FTC-Motorola Settlement

Today, the FTC released its Final Order in its settlement with Motorola on the company’s use of standard essential patents (SEPs).  Although there isn’t much “here” here, as the Commission is required by law to open Consent Decrees to public comment before it finalizes them, the 25 public comments (including one from my organization) the Commission received led to…

Observations on Crossing the RAND Rubicon

Last week a federal court crossed into uncharted territory, for the first time calculating the proper reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) royalty on a standard-essential patent (SEP).  [PDF here, via Ars]  The dispute arose in litigation between Motorola and Microsoft over implementations of Motorola-owned patents incorporated into WiFi and video standards, which Motorola had agreed to…

Standard-Essential Patents in Context: Just a Small Piece of the Smartphone War Puzzle

(Cross-posted on DisCo) There has been a recent flurry of policy and regulatory activity related to standard-essential patents (SEPs).  First, Samsung announced it was dropping its requests for injunctions on SEPs in its ongoing patent battles with Apple.  Then, curiously, the European Commission filed a “Statement of Objections” (first round of European antitrust charges) against the Korean company for…

Summarizing the Amici Briefs in Apple-Motorola before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

On June 22 Judge Richard Posner, sitting in designation, dismissed a patent infringement case between Motorola and Apple which included 15 Apple patents and 6 Motorola patents.  Judge Posner explained that even if infringement could be proven, neither party offered sufficient evidence to prove and entitlement to injunctive relief, and neither party had offered credible…