1. On FOSS Patents, Florian Mueller published a post this morning on Qualcomm's filing of a motion to stay enforcement of Judge Koh's ruling pending appeal (which we both think the judge will deny). The post also notes the rather remarkable publication of a Wall Street Journal op-ed by a sitting FTC Commissioner, Christine Wilson, criticizing her own agency's victory before Judge Koh!
For further discussion on FTC v. Qualcomm, see my previous posts here, here, here, and here; Law 360's compilation of its reporting on the decision here; Bloomberg Law's several articles (see here, here, and here); Gene Quinn's take on IP Watchdog here; and David Long's brief discussion of the decision on Essential Patents, here. (Mr. Long had previously expressed his skepticism over the FTC's case here.) Earlier this week, Mr. Mueller published a post discussing the recent invalidation of one of the patents Qualcomm had sought to enforce against Apple in Germany, here.
For further discussion on FTC v. Qualcomm, see my previous posts here, here, here, and here; Law 360's compilation of its reporting on the decision here; Bloomberg Law's several articles (see here, here, and here); Gene Quinn's take on IP Watchdog here; and David Long's brief discussion of the decision on Essential Patents, here. (Mr. Long had previously expressed his skepticism over the FTC's case here.) Earlier this week, Mr. Mueller published a post discussing the recent invalidation of one of the patents Qualcomm had sought to enforce against Apple in Germany, here.
2. Also on Essential Patents, Mr. Long summarizes Judge Rodney Gilstrap's ruling last week in HTC Corp. v. Telefonaktienbolaget LM Ericsson, entering a declaratory judgment that Ericsson complied with its FRAND obligation to HTC. Judge Gilstrap concluded that Ericsson was not required to base the royalty on the profit margin or cost of a baseband processor, and that the amount Ericsson sought was in line with other comparable licenses Ericsson had concluded with other firms.
3. On the Kluwer Patent Blog, Brian Cordery has published the somewhat improbably titled post Has the leopard changed his spots? Hold your horses, about a May 9, 2019 decision by Mr. Justice Carr in Evalve Inc. v. Edwards Lifesciences Ltd (Patents Court for England and Wales), denying an interim injunction against Edwards's plans to install ten infringing medical devices, prior to the expected date of trial and final judgment, as a pilot launch. The court concluded that, under the American Cyanamid factors, the balance of conveniences did not favor the patent owner, since the alleged infringement was on a small scale and would be remediable in damages. (The title, and some of the post itself, is a playful allusion to the judge's dismay at the plaintiff's use of animal metaphors, i.e., "copycat," "piggybacking"). Update (May 30): Further discussion of this case on IPKat here.
3. On the Kluwer Patent Blog, Brian Cordery has published the somewhat improbably titled post Has the leopard changed his spots? Hold your horses, about a May 9, 2019 decision by Mr. Justice Carr in Evalve Inc. v. Edwards Lifesciences Ltd (Patents Court for England and Wales), denying an interim injunction against Edwards's plans to install ten infringing medical devices, prior to the expected date of trial and final judgment, as a pilot launch. The court concluded that, under the American Cyanamid factors, the balance of conveniences did not favor the patent owner, since the alleged infringement was on a small scale and would be remediable in damages. (The title, and some of the post itself, is a playful allusion to the judge's dismay at the plaintiff's use of animal metaphors, i.e., "copycat," "piggybacking"). Update (May 30): Further discussion of this case on IPKat here.
No comments:
Post a Comment