1. Michael Carrier has published a piece on Bloomberg News titled New Statement on Standard-Essential Patents Relies on Omissions, Strawmen, Generalities. The article presents a (deservedly) critical take on the recently published USPTO/DOJ/NIST Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments. For my comments on the policy, see here.
Meanwhile, the DOJ is asking the Ninth Circuit for permission to participate in oral argument, on behalf of Qualcomm, next month when the court hears FTC v. Qualcomm. (See article on Law360 here.) Yes, that would mean two agencies of the U.S. government arguing against each other before a federal court of appeals. I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.
2. Léon Dijkman published a post on IPKat titled Hague Court of Appeal Stays Enforcement of Patent Injunction. The post discusses what the author describes as an "exceptionally rare" decision in which the Hague Court of appeal stayed enforcement of an injunction pending appeal, on the grounds that (1) the district court failed to consider some of the defendant's arguments, (2) the enforcement would cause significant damage to the defendant, and (3) the patent owner might not be able to provide recourse to the defendant if the decision on the merits is overturned on appeal. Very good post. The decision (VG Colours B.V. v. HE Licenties B.V.) is available here (in Dutch).
Also of possible interest to readers of this blog is a recent guest post on IPKat by Bohdan Widła titled Polish Constitutional Tribunal Rules That Rightholders Can Claim Damages Amounting to Twice a Hypothetical Licence Fee in Copyright Infringement Cases.
Meanwhile, the DOJ is asking the Ninth Circuit for permission to participate in oral argument, on behalf of Qualcomm, next month when the court hears FTC v. Qualcomm. (See article on Law360 here.) Yes, that would mean two agencies of the U.S. government arguing against each other before a federal court of appeals. I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.
2. Léon Dijkman published a post on IPKat titled Hague Court of Appeal Stays Enforcement of Patent Injunction. The post discusses what the author describes as an "exceptionally rare" decision in which the Hague Court of appeal stayed enforcement of an injunction pending appeal, on the grounds that (1) the district court failed to consider some of the defendant's arguments, (2) the enforcement would cause significant damage to the defendant, and (3) the patent owner might not be able to provide recourse to the defendant if the decision on the merits is overturned on appeal. Very good post. The decision (VG Colours B.V. v. HE Licenties B.V.) is available here (in Dutch).
Also of possible interest to readers of this blog is a recent guest post on IPKat by Bohdan Widła titled Polish Constitutional Tribunal Rules That Rightholders Can Claim Damages Amounting to Twice a Hypothetical Licence Fee in Copyright Infringement Cases.
3. On Patently-O, Jorge Contreras and Yang Yu published a guest post titled The Uncertain Criminal Status of PAE Litigation in China. The post discussed a decision of the Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Court finding that two individuals guilty of extortion, where they allegedly falsified and backdated a license agreement to compel a company to settle infringement litigation on the eve of an IPO, but otherwise finding no wrongdoing simply for the assertion of patents against other companies that similarly were preparing for IPOs. The prosecutor has appealed the latter ruling.
No comments:
Post a Comment