1. Rien Boekstra has published a post on the Kluwer Patent Blog titled NL – Sisvel v. Xiaomi – PI based on SEP denied, discussing a recent decision of the Hague Court of Appeal affirming the denial to Sisvel of a preliminary injunction against Xiaomi for the alleged infringement of two FRAND-committed SEPs. According to the post, the court weighed the competing interests--including the fact that the plaintiff is a nonpracticing entity--and concluded that the balance of interests weighed in favor of denying the injunction, even if one were to assume that the patents in suit were valid and infringed; and that article 9 of the EC Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive "is subject to the fundamental principles of EU law, including the principle of proportionality." Mathieu Klos also has an article on JUVE Patent, titled Court of Appeal rules Xiaomi may continue to sell products in the Netherlands.
2. IPWatchdog and Law360 both recently published posts commending the DOJ, USPTO, and NIST Policy Statement on Injunctions and SEPs. The first, by Robert Stoll, is titled The New U.S. Essential Patents Statement – Safeguarding the Integrity of the Patent System. The second, by Theodore Stevenson, Nicholas Mathews, and Patrick Pijls, is titled New US Policy on SEP Remedies Restores Critical Balance. As readers of this blog are aware, I disagree with these views, and would note once again that (fortunately, in my view) the policy statement does not have the force of law. For previous discussion, see here, here, here, and here.