Comments on India's DIPP Paper on SEPs and FRAND

Recently I published a post linking to the India Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) Discussion Paper on Standard Essential Patents and Their Availability on FRAND Terms (available here) and the comments submitted by the the Global Antitrust Institute, George Mason University School of Law, on the India Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion's Discussion Paper on Standard Essential Patents (available here).  Some of the other comments that were received prior to the April 22 deadline are available on the Centre for Internet and Society website here, and I understand that others may yet be added.  The ones available thus far include:

Comments of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), India;

Comments by Professor Jorge Contreras (who brought this collection of comments to my attention); 

Joint Comments by the American Bar Association Sections on Antitrust Law, Intellectual Property Law, International Law, and Science and Technology Law; and

Comments of CMAI-TEMA (Communication Multimedia and Infrastructure Association of India - Telecom Equipment Manufacturers Association of India).

*                   *                   *

In other news, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today denied a petition for a writ of mandamus in In re T.C. Heartland LLC, a case in which the petitioner challenged the Federal Circuit's long-standing interpretation of the federal patent venue statute.  Though not directly related to patent damages, the court's interpretation makes it very easy for patent plaintiffs to engage in forum shopping, which is a major reason why so many U.S. patent actions are filed in the Eastern District of Texas or (as here) the District of Delaware.  I'd expect a petition for rehearing en banc or cert petition.