Friday, December 21, 2018

Papers from PatDam 2; Punitive Damages in Korea; Qualcomm v. Apple

1.  As I mentioned on Wednesday, at least some of the papers presented at the February 2017 University of Texas Patent Damages Conference Part 2 have now been published.  At present, there doesn't appear to be a page on either the Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal (TIPLJ)'s or The Review of Litigation (TROL)'s website dedicated to all of the papers from this conference, as there was for PatDam 1.  (See here--though it now appears that some of the links on that page are dead.  The students running the site need to fix this, and to post all of the papers from PatDam2 which, after all, took place nearly two years ago.)  But here are the ones I've been able to locate.  All of the papers below are available on Westlaw, and some are probably available, perhaps in earlier versions, on ssrn.

John M. Golden, Foreword:  Channeling Patent Damages, 26 TIPLJ v (2018). 
Jennifer L. Blouin & Melissa F. Wasserman, Tax Solutions to Patent Damages, 26 TIPLJ 1 (2018).
Anne Layne-Farrar, The Patent Damages Gap:  An Economist's Review of U.S. Statutory Patent Damages Apportionment Rules, 26 TIPLJ 31 (2018).
Hon. Arthur J. Gajarsa, William F. Lee & A. Douglas Melamed,  Breaking the Georgia-Pacific Habit:  A Practical Proposal to Bring Simplicity and Structure to Reasonable Royalty Damages Determinations, 26 TIPLJ 51 (2018).
Oskar Liivak, Beyond Circularity:  Licensing for Innovation, 26 TIPLJ 113 (2018). 

There is also a commentary on Blouin & Wasserman's paper by Susan C. Morse, titled Seeking Comparable Transactions in Patent and Tax, in The Review of Litigation--The Brief (which I think is that journal's online companion), available here.

2.  On the IAM Blog earlier this week, Bing Zhao published a post titled Korea Adopts Treble Damages in Bid to Curb "Technology Extortion."  According to the post, treble damages will be available for willful patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation.  Courts will consider various factors ("recognition of infringement by the infringer or potential loss on the part of a patent owner," etc.) as relevant to willfulness.  Korea thus joins Taiwan and, possibly this coming year, China, in authorizing awards of treble damages.

3.  As many readers are aware, courts in China and Germany recently entered injunctions against certain models of iPhones in patent litigation initiated by Qualcomm.  Florian Mueller has had a series of posts on the German litigation, and his post today goes into some detail on the nature of the injunction, the possibility of Qualcomm being liable for wrongful enforcement damages if the trial court judgment is reversed on appeal, etc.  For other coverage, see, e.g., this article in the Wall Street Journal.

*                    *                    *

I plan to take a blogging break through the end of the year, and to resume after January 1.  Best wishes to my readers for the holiday season!

Wednesday, December 19, 2018

Two New Articles on Patent Remedies in the U.S.

In addition to the papers cited below, it appears that at least some of the papers presented at the February 2017 University of Texas Patent Damages Conference Part 2 have now been published.  I'll have a separate post on these shortly.

1.  Daniel Harris Bream has posted a paper on ssrn titled Grading Patent Remedies:  Dependent Claims and Relative Infringement, 84 Brooklyn L. Rev __ (forthcoming 2018).  Here is a link to the paper, and here is the abstract:
Patents define an inventor’s exclusive rights by reciting essential aspects of the invention in sentences called claims. The claims are drafted in varying degrees of technical specificity, such that each claim is legally distinct—some may be valid or infringed while others are not. Most commonly, this variation is accomplished by using a combination of “independent” and “dependent” claims. Independent claims stand alone, while dependent claims incorporate by reference all the features recited in the independent claims but go on to add further features or details. The result is a range of potential infringing activity that triggers liability, from the broadest, most conceptual claims to the narrowest, most concrete claims.
Yet when it comes time to remedy infringement, this range of infringement is too often treated as meaningless. Parties rarely bother to distinguish between claims when assessing damages or injunctive relief. And courts hold, for example, that damages owed for infringing one claim is no different than the damages for infringement of any other claim in the patent. This is not consistent with the law or common sense. Not every claim is of equal technological or societal value, nor is infringement of every claim equally harmful to the patent owner. Parties and courts should start paying more attention to the relative significance of the patent claims involved.
This article focuses on dependent claims as a particularly useful vehicle for evaluating relative patent remedies between claims. Any two patent claims can be compared, though their relative scopes can be debatable when, for example, two claims are directed to alternative embodiments. But dependent claims are, by definition, narrower in scope than their base independent claims. Dependent claims also are commonly employed to expressly cover commercial products or preferred embodiments of inventions. As a result, dependent claims often protect the core and most detailed disclosures of the patent specification, occupying the most important competitive space to the patent owner. The relative value of those claims to patent owners, infringers, and the public, should be evaluated as part of any sound patent remedies assessment. 
2.  Adam MacLeod has posted a paper titled Patent Infringement as Trespass, 69 Ala. L. Rev. 723 (2018).  Here is a link, and here is the abstract: 
The now-conventional account of patent law holds that infringement is a strict liability offense, meaning that intent is not an element of an infringement claim. This account heightens the apparent injustice of patent law’s special knowledge problem, that as ambiguous descriptions of intangible resources, patent claims do not sufficiently make potential infringers aware of a patentee’s right to exclude. Particularly in the age of so-called “patent thickets,” clusters of patents of variable merit which are indistinguishable from each other and from prior art, strict liability for infringement seems rather hard.
These problems reflect a conceptual misunderstanding. When infringement is understood as a species of trespass, as it was long described in American law, the various aspects of infringement doctrine fall into place. Common law traditionally recognizes three forms of trespass. Together, those three forms explain all of infringement doctrine as a coherent whole and resolve the apparent injustices that seem problematic on the conventional account of infringement. The only aspect of infringement doctrine that does not fit the trespass picture is the four-factor interpretation of eBay, which is contrary to the Justices’ insistence in eBay that they were neither overturning patent infringement doctrine nor disturbing traditional equitable maxims.

Monday, December 17, 2018

News on Patent Remedies in China

1.  Zhang Guangliang, Tao Jun, Peng Wenyi, Chen Yong, and S. Sam Li have published a very interesting article titled A Study on the Improvement of Remedies for Patent Infringement in China Patents & Trademarks No. 4, 2018, pp. 83-91.  The authors review the general state of the law regarding permanent injunctions (which are normally granted for infringement, though subject to exceptions when an injunction would disserve the public interest, would be difficult to enforce, or "would result in [an] imbalance of interests") and damages (noting, among other things, the prevalence of awards of statutory damages in China).  With regard to injunctions, the authors recommend that the "meaning of the state and public interests" be defined, that courts take into account whether an injunction would be disproportionate (as it might be where the patent in suit "concerns only a tiny and non-essential component of a product" or would have a much greater adverse impact on the defendant), and also take into account the parties' good or bad faith.  With regard to damages, they recommend that courts be authorized to award punitive damages for willful infringement, that evidence-gathering and burden allocation rules be reformed to better enable an accurate calculation of damages (and thus obviate such frequent recourse to statutory damages), and "clarify the application of the technical apportionment" principle, to ensure that damages are awarded based on the contribution of the patent in suit.  

The article does not appear to be available online, but if your institution can get a copy of this publication, the article is worth reading.  (The magazine's general website is here.)

2.  There has been much discussion over the past week over the decision of a court in Fujian to enter a preliminary injunction against Apple in an ongoing patent infringement suit initiated by Qualcomm.  Jacob Schindler's article on the IAM Blog titled Revealed:  The Chinese Patents That Earned Qualcomm an iPhone Injunction goes into some depth concerning the matter, and also has a useful discussion of the rate at which courts in China and in Fujian in particular grant preliminary injunctions in patent cases.  (For previous discussion on this blog, see, e.g., here.)

3. Mark Cohen published a post on the China IPR Blog titled State Council Clears Patent Law Amendments, Forwards to NPC, Patent Linkage Is Not Referenced ….  The post references proposed amendments which, according to Mr. Cohen's rough translation of the draft's description, would among other things "increase the severity of penalties for intellectual property infringement . . . significantly increase the amount of compensation and fines for willful infringement and counterfeiting of patents, and significantly increase the cost of infringement to deter illegal acts," as well as "clarif[y] the burden of proof for the infringer to cooperate in providing relevant information . . . ."

Friday, December 14, 2018

News on Enhanced Damages in the U.S.

1.  Jeremy Taylor, Sarah Guske, and Wayne Stacy recently published an article on Law360 titled The New Reality of Patent Trials Post-Halo.  According to the authors, in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2016 Halo decision "juries now find infringement much more often when willfulness is tried to the jury," and there is "a strong correlation  between the two causes of action . . . . juries seem to run the two findings together."  Further, while "juries found infringement in roughly half of all trials" pre-Halo, post-Halo "infringement findings jumped to 77 percent when willful infringement and infringement were tried together."  In addition, post-Halo "juries found willful infringement 74 percent of the time overall, and almost 90 percent of the time when the same jury found all asserted claims infringed."  The correlation disappears, however, "when infringement and willfulness are decided separately . . . or when a jury finds only some claims infringed . . . ."  The authors don't state how many cases their analysis is based on or whether their findings are statistically significant, but if they hold out this seems pretty disturbing to me (though perhaps not surprising).  

The authors also state that courts across the country have begun using the jury instructions developed in Polara Engineering, Inc. v. Campbell Co., Case No. 8:13:cv:00007 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2016).  Here is a link to those instructions, number 56 of which address wilfulness, and here is the text of a version of them that is now included in the Federal Circuit Bar Association's Model Patent Jury Instruction B.3.10:
In this case, [patent holder] argues both that [alleged infringer] infringed and, further, that [alleged infringer] infringed willfully. If you have decided that [alleged infringer] has infringed, you must go on and address the additional issue of whether or not this infringement was willful. Willfulness requires you to determine whether [patent holder] proved that it is more likely than not that the infringement by [alleged infringer] was especially worthy of punishment. You may not determine that the infringement was willful just because [alleged infringer] knew of the [ ] patent and infringed it. Instead, willful infringement is reserved for only the most egregious behavior, such as where the infringement is malicious, deliberate, consciously wrongful, or done in bad faith.
To determine whether [alleged infringer] acted willfully, consider all facts. These may include, but are not limited, to:
(1) Whether or not [alleged infringer] acted consistently with the standards of behavior for its industry;
(2) Whether or not [alleged infringer] intentionally copied a product of [patent holder] that is covered by the [ ] patent;
(3) Whether or not [alleged infringer] reasonably believed it did not infringe or that the patent was invalid;
(4) Whether or not [alleged infringer] made a good-faith effort to avoid infringing the [ ] patent, for example, whether [alleged infringer] attempted to design around the [ ] patent; and (5) Whether or not [alleged infringer] tried to cover up its infringement.
[Give this instruction only if [alleged infringer] relies upon an opinion of counsel as a defense to an allegation of willful infringement:
[Alleged infringer] argues it did not act willfully because it relied on a legal opinion that advised [alleged infringer] either (1) that the [product] [method] did not infringe the [ ] patent or (2) that the [ ] patent was invalid [or unenforceable]. You must evaluate whether the opinion was of a quality that reliance on its conclusions was reasonable.]
2.  The blogs have also noted some recent significant cases on willfulness and/or enhanced damages, including the $130 million enhancement awarded in Alfred E. Mann Fdn. v. Cochlear Corp. (write-ups available on IP Watchdog and Law360); the trial judge's reaffirmation that Briggs & Stratton willfully infringed Exmark's patent in Exmark Mfg. Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Corp. following a remand from the Federal Circuit (write-up on Law360); a recent award of double damages (amounting to just under $12 million) in Fitness Anywhere LLC v. WOSS Enterprises (write-up on IP Watchdog); a recent finding of wilfulness in Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. 10X Genomics, Inc., which could lead to an enhancement of an actual damages award in the amount of $24 million (write-up on IP Watchdog); and the Federal Circuit's affirmance without opinion in Stryker v. Zimmer (write-up on Patently-O).

Wednesday, December 12, 2018

From Around the Blogs Part 2: FRAND Issues in China, Preliminary Injunctions in Spain and Ukraine

1.  On the IAM Blog, Jill Ge recently published a post titled How a Chinese Court Would Have Decided the Unwired Planet Appeal.  Ms. Ge concludes that (1) as in Unwired Planet, "it is probable that Chinese courts can adjudicate a global FRAND licence"; (2) unlike Unwired Planet, Chinese courts would probably adopt the hard-edged non-discrimination principle (which is what the EWCA thought too); and (3) Chinese courts "would consider the parties' negotiation behaviours as well as the reasonableness of the offers made during negotiation," as reflected for example in the Shenzhen court's recent Huawei v. Samsung decision. 

(Interestingly, Justice Carr of the Patent Court for England and Wales had concluded in April 2018 that Chinese courts can't set a global FRAND rate.  See the write-up on IPKat here.  Interesting.)

Also of interest on IAM is an opinion piece by Jonathan Stroud titled It's Time to Sort Out the Connected Car Disconnect, discussing some recent FRAND-related developments as they relate to connected cars.  Both pieces are highly recommended.

2.  On the Kluwer Patent Blog, Miguel Montañá published a post titled Court of Appeal of Barcelona revisits to what extent validity may be analysed in preliminary injunction proceedings.  According to the post, in the mid-2000s judges of the Commercial Courts of Barcelona had largely come around to the view that, on a motion for a preliminary injunction, courts could not "examine validity in depth," but rather that validity should be presumed absent "very robust indicia," presented by the opposing party, supporting invalidity.  More recent decisions, however, had departed from this practice and began "holding profound validity discussions," involving expert testimony and cross-examination.  According to the author, however, an October 2018 decision of the Court of Appeal concluded that the court of first instance's analysis of validity was excessive, potentially displacing the analysis that would take place in the main proceedings.  To the same effect is a discussion of an April 2018 decision of the same court, as described in a post on Kluwer by Adrian Crespo.  According to the author, this decision too "clarifies that, while validity may be discussed, the analysis should not reach the same level of depth as in the main proceedings."

3.  And again on Kluwer, here is a post by Ilarion Tomarov titled Ukraine:  Interim Injunctions in Pharma Cases, discussing a decision of the Ukrainian Supreme Court in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.  I won't try to summarize the post here, but the upshot is that the court appears to be more favorable towards allowing patent owners to obtain interim injunctions, particularly where a refusal to grant such relief would mean that the patent owner, if successful at trial, would face "considerable expenses to remove from the market and . . . destroy the infringing products."

Monday, December 10, 2018

My Law360 Article on Makan Delrahim's December 7 Speech

Here is a link to the article, titled DOJ Speech May Leave SEP Implementers In Dire Straits.

IP Chat Channel Webinar on Enforcing Patents Globally

On Thursday, December 13, from 2-3 p.m. Eastern Time, the IP Chat Channel will be hosting a webinar titled Enforcing Patents: Global Strategies and Tactics.  Here is a link, and here is the description:
Considering the invalidation risk of AIA post-grant proceedings, the uncertainty about patent eligibility after the Alice and Mayo U.S. Supreme Court decisions, as well as the difficulty in getting an injunction after eBay, many experts have concluded that successfully enforcing a patent in the U.S. is a much harder task than it was a dozen years ago.
Some patent owners with international patent portfolios have decided to litigate in other countries which they see as more patent friendly, instead of, or in addition to, pursuing litigation the U.S. This shift has seemingly contributed to a documented spike in patent cases filed in EU countries, most of them in Germany.
This webinar features a U.S.-based IP executive who has carried out a successful patent enforcement campaign in Europe, a litigator based in Silicon Valley with experience in European courts on behalf of U.S. clients, and a leading German patent litigator with many multinational clients. Drawing on their first-hand experiences, they will discuss:
  • The decisions necessary before launching foreign litigation
  • Important differences between legal systems
  • Using foreign litigation to encourage global settlement
  • The reality of what it takes to enforce an injunction in Germany
  • Whether European decisions make any impact on U.S. courts
  • The risk that foreign litigation could backfire in the U.S.
  • Steven Carlson, Robins Kaplan LLP 
  • Johannes Heselberger, Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft MbB
  • Boris Teksler, Conversant Intellectual Property Management Inc.

Friday, December 7, 2018

Breaking News: USDOJ Pulls Out of the 2013 USDOJ/USPTO Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments

Here is a link to USDOJ Antitrust Chief Makan Delrahim's speech today in Palo Alto, California, announcing the withdrawal.  Here is a copy of the Policy Statement, which is still available on the USPTO's website (but not the DOJ's), and here is backup copy I just made, in case it goes missing from USPTO's website.  

I will have more to say about this before long.  For now, Ill just say that I don't think the withdrawal is a good idea . . . .

Update:  On Friday night, Law360 published a short write-up on Mr. Delrahim's speech, and I will be publishing an analysis on Law360 myself in a few days.  I'll provide a link when it is available.

From Around the Blogs Part 1: Damages in Canada, Spain, Taiwan, and the U.S.

1.  On the Sufficient Description blog, Norman Siebrasse has posted a four-part series (here, here, here, and here) on a recent decision of Canada's Court of Appeal, Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.  The decision holds, among other things, that (1) in assessing patent damages a court must consider whether an alleged noninfringing alternative (the existence of which would reduce the amount of damages) was objectively economically viable (thus rendering irrelevant Apotex's assertion that, but-for the infringement, it would have turned to an alternative that was unprofitable); (2) where, as here, use of the asserted noninfringing alternative would have infringed another of the plaintiff's patents, it would not have been an available alternative; and (3) compound interest is available as a "head of damages," but that there is no presumption in favor of its use.  Professor Siebrasse has some insightful observations about the first two of these holdings in particular.

2.  On the Kluwer Patent Blog, Miguel Montañá published a post titled Damages may be considered proven when the facts speak for themselves.  The post discusses a July 2018 decision of the Barcelona Court of Appeal holding that in some instances the "facts speak for themselves," that is, "the existence of damages if intrinsic to the nature of the infringement and does not require special proof."  If I understand correctly, however, the patent owner would still bear the burden of coming forward with evidence as to the amount of its injury, even if the fact of injury is presumed.  Apparently the facts of this particular case showed that the plaintiff was in negotiations with a customer when the defendant supplied that customer with an infringing product.

On a personal note, I will be speaking at one or two forums in Barcelona in late March 2019.  I'm looking forward to returning to one of my favorite cities.

3.  On the IAM Blog, Yulan Kuo published a post titled Taiwan Supreme Court Issues Decision on Unfair Enrichment in Patent Infringement Case.  According to the author, in Koninklijke Philips NV v. Gigastorage Corp. the court reversed the Taiwan IP Court's award of NT$1 billion for unjust enrichment and remanded for further consideration in light of various factors.  If I understand correctly, the court also wants the lower court to consider whether delay in enforcing one's rights might reduce the award, even if the statute of limitations has expired (compare with the U.S. Supreme Court's view in SCA Hygiene).  On a personal note here, I may be visiting Taiwan in the fall of 2019, so perhaps I will have an opportunity to discuss this case then. 

4.  On IP Watchdog, Mark Pedigo published a post titled Use of the Book of Wisdom in Reasonable Royalties, recapping the relevant Federal Circuit and lower court decisions permitting (or not) the use of information post-dating the date of the first infringement, for purposes of calculating reasonable royalties.  Mr. Pedigo concludes that "[u]se and acceptance of the book of wisdom can be relevant and useful, but it is not always allowed by the courts."

For some papers I have coauthored arguing that courts should be more open to the admissibility of such evidence, see here and here.

Wednesday, December 5, 2018

Some New Papers, Posts on FRAND Issues (Part 3)

1. Richard Stern has published a paper titled TCL v Ericsson:  US Court Determines Top-Down FRAND Royalty Rate for SEPs and Insists on Similar Percentage-of-Sale-Price Payments for High and Low Priced Devices, 40 E.I.P.R. 557-69  (2018).  Here is the abstract:
In TCL v Ericsson a district court issued a second major US FRAND judgment endorsing the "top-down" methodology and rejecting the "bottom-up" methodology for determining SEP royalties. The court also required substantially equal percentage-of-sales-price royalty payments for large and small competitors, and for upmarket and downmarket sellers alike, to satisfy FRAND’s nondiscrimination requirement. The court’s top-down approach may neutralise a trend among owners of large SEP portfolios to split up and diffuse their SEPs among many "privateers" in order to inflate total royalty payments. 
2. Gregory J. Werden and Luke M. Froeb have posted a paper on ssrn titled Why Patent Hold-Up Does Not Violate Antitrust LawHere is  a link, and here is the abstract:
Owners of standard essential patents (SEPs) are cast as villains for engaging in “patent hold-up,” i.e., taking advantage of the fact that they negotiate royalties with implementer-licensees that already have made sunk investments in the standard. In contrast to “patent ambush,” patent hold-up involves no standard-setting misconduct or harm to any competitive process, and thus cannot violate antitrust law. Commentators taking a contrary positions confuse the ends of antitrust law with its means. Antitrust law promotes consumer welfare only by protecting competition. Casting aside this core principle would expose business decisions, including ordinary price setting, to judicial oversight. Commitments made by SEP owners in the standard-setting process, however, should be enforced, and they are enforced. Without an antitrust cause of action, implementers invoke the powers of the courts to resolve royalty disputes over SEPs.
3. Kelce Wilson has posted a paper on ssrn titled Designing a Standard Essential Patent (SEP) Program, 53 les Nouvelles 202 (Sept. 2018).  Here is a link, and here is the abstract:
Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) are a unique form of intellectual property rights (IPR), due to various considerations that can notably impact their value and usage options. Some of these considerations include:
1. Potentially simplified infringement case, when litigated;
2. Easily-detectable potential infringement, to facilitate drafting claim charts prior to litigation discovery;
3. Readily-identifiable potential infringers, to facilitate identifying targets for an enforcement program;
4. Possibly global licensee pool, to financially incentivize multi-national prosecution;
5. Potentially limited enforcement options, such as a potential unavailability of an injunction;
6. Potentially limited royalty rates, due to (fair) reasonable and non-discriminatory ((F)RAND) limitations; and
7. Affirmative commitments to license SEPs on FRAND terms in some standards setting organizations (SSOs).
8. Disclosure obligations of related patents and applications in some SSOs.
Some helpful, excellent articles explain advantages for organizations in certain industries pursuing SEPs as part of a patent portfolio. Described herein are some issues to consider when designing a SEP program for patent portfolio growth.
4.  Also of interest are recent posts (1) by Raymond Millen and Jan Schnitzer on the IAM Blog titled The EPO should rule on SEPs, say top European auto patent players (more specifically, the proposal is for the EPO to decide on whether patents declared essential are in fact essential; the EPO wouldn't be making FRAND determinations); and (2) on the IPKat and World Intellectual Property Review, both discussing a recent session at AIPPI 2018 titled Standard Essential Patents--Maximizing Value Before Enforcement.

Monday, December 3, 2018

IP Chat Channel Webinar on FRAND

On Thursday, December 6, from 2-3 p.m. Eastern Time, the IP Chat Channel will be hosting a webinar titled FRAND:  The Latest Developments and Predicting the Future SEP LandscapeHere is a link, and here is the description:
In recent months, case law is continuing to develop in the evolving jurisprudence surrounding standard essential patents (SEPs) in the U.S. and elsewhere.
In November, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order granting in part the FTC’s bid for summary judgment in its unfair competition case involving Qualcomm. The order addressed the issue of whether, under industry agreements to license SEPs at rates that are fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND), Qualcomm had to license its essential patents to competing modem chip suppliers. Some experts say this decision could tee up similar licensing fights against other SEP holders.
Unwired Planet International Ltd. v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. is another decision some experts view as having wide implications. In October, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales issued its much-anticipated ruling, finding Huawei may be barred from selling its smartphones in the U.K. if it refuses to pay a global license fee for Unwired Planet’s technology. The Court also rejected Huawei's suggestion that the license Unwired Planet offered was not on "nondiscriminatory terms" because the royalty rate was higher than that which Unwired Planet previously agreed to with Samsung. The judgment could impact not only the terms of future licenses, but also the way that parties negotiate licenses and make offers to SEP owners.  
Our panelists, which include lawyers who represent both SEP owners and implementers, will discuss:
• Whether global licenses will come to dominate FRAND negotiations in the future
• If there is any consensus emerging on how to calculate license terms that are fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory for SEP patents
• The strengths and weaknesses of the differing valuation approaches of TCL and Unwired Planet
• The impact of the availability of injunctions for the infringement of a SEP in Europe and China on litigation strategy
The speakers will be:
  • Logan Breed, Hogan Lovells LLP
  • Dave Djavaherian, PacTech Law
  • Matteo Sabbatini, Ericsson
I would also note that the IP Chat Channel's December 13 webinar is titled Enforcing Patents: Transnational Tactics and Global Strategies.  When I have more information on that, I will pass it along.