1. Much of the commentary this past week has centered on the Biden Administration’s withdrawal of the Draft Policy Statement on Licensing Negotiations and Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary FRAND Commitments, which I discussed earlier this week. (My overall take: I’m still not convinced that these various Policy Statements are as important as people think, given that the courts are the ultimate arbiters of what the law requires.) Here is a list of commentary, from a variety of perspectives: (1) Ryan Richardson, Navigating the Void Left by Withdrawn SEP Policy Statement, Law360, June 14, 2022; (2) Kelcee Griffis, Matthew Bultman & Dan Papscun, Biden’s Rollback of Standard-Patent Policy Places Onus on Courts, Bloomberg Law, June 10, 2022; (3) Angela Morris, SEP holders and implementers alike welcome withdrawal of US FRAND policy statement, IAM Media, June 13, 2022; (4) Florian Mueller, Confusion over U.S. government agencies' positions on antitrust aspects of standard-essential patents: 2019, 2021 DOJ-USPTO-NIST statements tossed; Commissioner Wilson distances herself from Chair Khan's submission to ITC, FOSS Patents, June 9, 2022; (5) Gene Quinn, The Biden Administration’s Neutrality Position on SEP Remedies is a Good Move, IP Watchdog, June 9, 2022; (6) Curtis Dodd & Chris Dubuc, Announcements on Withdrawal of SEP Policy Statements Lack Clarity and Leave Patent Owners Guessing, IP Watchdog, June 13, 2022.
2. On JUVE Patent, Mathieu Klos published a post titled Thomas Kühnen won’t dance to the Federal Court of Justice FRAND tune. The author argues that a recent decision of the Düsseldorf Oberlandesgericht in a dispute between Philips and TCT hints that the court may impose an intermediate step in the FRAND “dance” by suggesting that an “implementer’s concrete willingness to license is not an issue until the court has classified the SEP holder’s licence offer as FRAND-complaint.” I will certainly be paying attention to developments in this space, as I work in the coming months on an edited volume with Peter Picht and Erik Habich on German FRAND case law.
3. Also on JUVE is a post by Konstanze Richter titled
and Hoyng ROKH repel cross-border injunction attempt by Boston Scientific,
discussing the District Court of Amsterdam’s recent dismissal of a request for
a cross-border injunction in a case involving Boston Scientific and various entities
related to Cook Medical. Update: On June 20, Eelco Bergsma and Iris van der Heijdt published a post on this case on the EPLaw blog. Both blogs provide a link to the judgment (in Dutch).