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.
Tag Archive for standard essential patents
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…
EU Competition Authorities Fine Qualcomm While DoJ Says “No Problem”
by Josh Landau •
Yesterday, EU Commissioner for Competition Margarete Vestager announced the Commission’s decision to fine Qualcomm for using pricing and contract terms to force a rival out of the market. This fine follows another EU fine issued last year for Qualcomm’s use of exclusivity payments to avoid competition. If that sounds familiar, it’s because earlier this year,…
Huawei Moves Ahead With Aggressive Licensing Posture
by Josh Landau •
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…
Judge Koh: Qualcomm’s Licensing Practices Destroyed Competition, Harmed Consumers
by Josh Landau •
Late yesterday evening, Judge Koh issued her anxiously-awaited ruling in the FTC v. Qualcomm litigation. The 233-page opinion extensively describes Qualcomm’s anti-competitive conduct, how it has harmed both existing and potential competitors as well as consumers, and how that conduct has ultimately harmed competition in the LTE and 5G markets. It would normally be hard…
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…
Delrahim Out Of Step With FTC, Industry, Academics On FRAND/SEP
by Jacqueline Yin •
Jacqueline Yin is a Legal Fellow at the Computer & Communications Industry Association. This post is also online at Project DisCo. In the U.S., antitrust laws are typically enforced by both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). For example, the DOJ and FTC share the authority to enforce the…
Delrahim Pulls DoJ Out Of FRAND-SEP Policy Guidance
by Josh Landau •
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…
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…