Tuesday, June 20, 2023

From Around the Blogs

1. I've been on vacation, but while I was away word leaked out that Mr. Justice Marcus Smith had authored a (until just recently still unpublished) 283-page decision in in Optis v. Apple.  (Two of the commentaries mentioned below state that the citation for the decision is [2023] EWHC 1095 (Ch.), but I'm still not seeing the decision listed on BAILII's website.  However, the EPLaw Blog today published a a copy of the redacted decision, which I can now begin reading for myself.)  According to commentary on EPLaw, FOSS Patents, JUVE Patent, and Kluwer Patent, the decision awards Optis $56.43 million ($5.13 million per year) plus interest for Apple's past and future global access to Optis' portfolio of FRAND-committed SEPs; rejects the SSPPU rule and Apple's assertion that Optis abused a dominant position; but also rejects Optis' argument that Apple was an unwilling licensee, and Optis' proposed comparables as a basis for calculating the royalties due.  283 pages will be a lot to slog through, but I am looking forward to reading the decision and intend to provide some commentary on it in due course.  

2. On Bloomberg Law, Michael Shapiro published an article titled Idaho’s Anti-‘Patent Troll’ Law Challenged in Federal Appeal.  The article discusses an appeal recently filed by Longhorn IP LLC and Katana Silicon Technologies LLC from a judgment finding that Idaho’s anti-troll law is not preempted by federal law, and requiring the posting of an $8 million bond to continue litigation.  The appeal will go to the Federal Circuit, which has not yet addressed this issue. 

3. On JUVE Patent, Mathieu Klos published an article titled 10x Genomics and Bardehle achieve rare AASI in biotech dispute against NanoString.  The case implicates infringement actions filed by 10x Genomics against NanoString in the U.S. and Germany; the patent in suit in Germany relates to "compositions and methods for analyte detection."  In April, NanoString had filed, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, an application for an antisuit and antienforcement injunctions relating to the German actions.  The author states that the Munich Regional Court issued an anti-antisuit injunction, and that this may be the first such case in a patent dispute in Europe outside the mobile telecommunications/SEP sector.

4.  On IP Watchdog, Tobias Wuttke published the fifth installment of his series on the UPC, titled Countdown to the Unified Patent Court, Part V: Five Predictions for the UPC on Day One.  The article predicts, among other matters, that “the UPC will adopt a generous practice for preliminary injunctions (PIs),” in the wake of the CJEU’s decision in Phoenix Contact (previously discussed on this blog here, here, and here); will not impose a strict urgency requirement (as has generally been the practice in Germany, as recently discussed on this blog here); and may adopt a liberal cross-border injunction practice patterned after Dutch practice.

5. On Law360, Eliana Garces, Joshua White and John Jarosz published an article titled Global Issues In EU's Licensing Plans For Essential Patents, regarding the European Commission' s draft SEP regulation; and Alex Baldwin published Top UK Court To Hear Apple's Appeal In Global FRAND Spat.  At issue in the latter is whether the owner of a FRAND-committed SEP can obtain an injunction unless the implementer agrees to a court-determined FRAND license, and whether such an injunction is proper where the implementer alleges that the owner abused its dominant position.  A bit hard to imagine how this could come out differently than Unwired Planet, but we'll see.

No comments:

Post a Comment