Monday, May 10, 2021

From Around the Blogs: SEP/FRAND Issues

1.  On the Kluwer Patent Blog, Enrico Bonadio, Luke McDonagh, and Francesco Chierichetti published a post titled .  The post discusses four cases, though as the authors note the most recent is a Court of Milan decision Ical et al. v Rovi Guides et al. from 2015.  The authors conclude that this decision and an earlier decision of that same court in Samsung v Apple are the two most important, the Samsung case because "it was noted that it is crucial to enforce SEPs in a way which is not abusive and does not jeopardise competition, taking into account the need to encourage cultural and scientific progress," and the Ical case because it "clearly highlighted the importance of relying on correct declarations of essentiality." 

2. On Law360, Mathew Perlman published an article titled Does DOJ's Rebranding Of Patent Policy Letter Hint At More?  The article discusses the DOJ's recent restoration of its 2015 IEEE Business Review Letter, and speculates whether this heralds a broader repudiation of the Trump Administration's SEP/FRAND policies.  Let's hope so.

3.  IP Watchdog has published three recent posts on SEP issues:  Tim Pohlmann's SEP Litigation Trends: What Does the Data Say?, which provides an empirical overview of SEP litigation trends around the world; Roya Ghafele's A Standard Essential Patent Valuation Perspective on Ericsson v. Samsung, which discusses comparables versus top-down and calls for greater transparency to assist in valuation efforts; and Curtis Dodd's A New Trial is Ordered with Respect to Damages in Optis Wireless v. Apple, Despite No FRAND Claims at Issue, discussing a recent decision by Judge Gilstrap in the E.D. Tex. ordering a new trial on damages in Optis Wireless Technology, LLC et al. v. Apple Inc., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00066-JRG (E.D. Texas).  (For other coverage of the order in Optis v. Apple, see this write-up on Law360). 

4. On FOSS Patents, Florian Mueller published a post titled CJEU sets August deadline for observations from European Commission, EU member states and parties on standard-essential patent licensing questions in Nokia v. Daimler, setting out the CJEU's official translation of the questions presented (addressing the requirements of E.U. competition law relative to the license-to-all versus access-to-all question, and several clarifications relating to Huawei v. ZTE). 

5. EPLaw published a PowerPoint presentation by Marie-Léa Rols, Matthew Raynor, Philipp Widera, and Roeland Grijpink titled Anti(-anti)-suit injunctions.

6. On the ChinaIPR Blog, Mark Cohen published an informative post titled Three SPC Reports Document China’s Drive to Increase its Global Role on IP Adjudication.  The author discusses, among other things, the Chinese court's emphasis on antisuit injunctions to resolve global IP disputes.

No comments:

Post a Comment