1. The FTC has filed its responsive brief in FTC v. Qualcomm. I'll be spending some time reading it later today, and may have some comments later this week. Meanwhile, there is coverage on Bloomberg and FOSS Patents (here and here), plus an op-ed on the national security issue by Michael Chertoff in the Wall Street Journal.
2. On Spicy IP, Pankhuri Agarwal published a post coauthored with Bhavik Shukla titled Delhi HC Division Bench Restores Sanctity of Three-Pronged Test for Interim Injunctions; Sets Aside Two Interim Injunction Orders against Natco. The post discusses a decision from this past July in which the Delhi High Court set aside two interim injunctions entered against generic drug manufacturer Natco. According to the post, the trial judge, in line with his previous decision in Sterlite Technologies, had entered the injunction based on his view that interim injunctions are necessary to preserve the patent owner's ability to reap the benefits of its patents--and without deciding the standard factors of prima facie case, irreparable harm, and balance of conveniences. The Delhi High Court held that such a "blanket approach" was erroneous, and that courts should consider the standard three factors along with "other parameters" which have arisen in other patent cases.
2. On Spicy IP, Pankhuri Agarwal published a post coauthored with Bhavik Shukla titled Delhi HC Division Bench Restores Sanctity of Three-Pronged Test for Interim Injunctions; Sets Aside Two Interim Injunction Orders against Natco. The post discusses a decision from this past July in which the Delhi High Court set aside two interim injunctions entered against generic drug manufacturer Natco. According to the post, the trial judge, in line with his previous decision in Sterlite Technologies, had entered the injunction based on his view that interim injunctions are necessary to preserve the patent owner's ability to reap the benefits of its patents--and without deciding the standard factors of prima facie case, irreparable harm, and balance of conveniences. The Delhi High Court held that such a "blanket approach" was erroneous, and that courts should consider the standard three factors along with "other parameters" which have arisen in other patent cases.
3. On IPKat, Alex Woolgar published a post by Rien Broekstra and Gaëlle Béquet titled FRAND: OLG Karlsruhe rules on nature, extent and timing of obligations under Huawei v. ZTE. The post links to an October 30 decision of the Karlsruhe Oberlandesgericht, Case 6 U 183/16, involving an action by Philips against Wiko. The authors state that the decision point to some divergences among the practice of the German, English, and Dutch courts in applying Huawei v. ZTE. Whereas courts in the latter two nations view the Huawei framework as a safe harbor (see, e.g., Mr. Justice Birss's opinion in Unwired Planet), the German courts take a somewhat stricter view by requiring the patent owner to comply or risk a finding that it has abused its dominant position. However, that strictness is softened a bit by allowing the SEP owner to suspend a suit to provide the implementer with the required notice, which must include sufficient information to enable the implementer to evaluate whether it is being treated in a discriminatory fashion. According to the authors, the Dutch courts, by contrast, place the burden of proving FRAND terms on the implementer. I wonder if the CJEU will take another FRAND case one of these days to resolve these emerging issues?
4. Also on FOSS Patents, Florian Mueller published a post titled Report on Berlin SEP licensing and injunctions workshop released by ACT | The App Association: AllThingsFRAND, which links to the latter organization's report (which also notes the divergence among the German, English, and Dutch courts in applying Huawei v. ZTE); and another titled EU-based industry body outlines criteria for standard-essential patent pools to have positive impact on innovation, which links to the Fair Standards Alliance's recommendations on SEP pools.
No comments:
Post a Comment