From Around the Blogs

1. Enrico Bonadio, Jorge Tinoco, and Daniel Leopoldino have published a post on the Kluwer Patent Blog titled SEPs Injunctions with a Tropical Flavour: the Brazilian Scenario.  The post discusses several FRAND cases in which Brazilian courts have granted preliminary and, in one case, permanent injunctive relief.  The authors note one recent case, however—DivX v Gorenje—in which the court denied a preliminary injunction, subject to the defendant posting a bond, which they state “ might represent a turn in the national SEPs case law, which would place Brazil more in line with other jurisdictions such as the EU where FRAND commitments are taken seriously . . . .”

2. Graham Burnett-Hall has published a post on EPLaw titled UK – Panasonic v. Xiaomi – Appeal / FRAND, discussing the recent decision of the EWCA holding, as the author states, “that, once the parties to a FRAND dispute have agreed that the UK court should determine the fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms for a global licence for the relevant standard essential patents (SEPs), it is not consistent with the patentee’s FRAND obligations for the patentee to pursue separate proceedings and seek injunctions against the same implementer in other jurisdictions,” and that instead the patentee should be an interim license that may be adjusted later on.  I also blogged about this decision recently, here.

3. On ip fray, Florian Mueller published a post titled UPC’s Dusseldorf LD enjoins resale of smartphones for elderly over LED patent, addresses some interesting legal questions, discussing a recent decision (Seoul Viosys v. expert e-Commerce GmbH & expert klein GmbH) granting an injunction, notwithstanding the fact that the patent in suit forms a relatively minor component of the end product (see para. I(G) of the decision). 

4.  I mentioned a few weeks ago that OxFirst would be presenting a free webinar on the European Commission’s amicus brief, filed with the Munich Higher Regional Court, in HMD Global Oy v. VoiceAge EVS GmbH & Co.  The recording of the webinar is now available here.  I should note that I will be participating in a webinar on this topic, along with inter alia my coeditors Peter Picht and Erik Habich, sometime in November; more details to follow.

5.  On Patently-O, Dennis Crouch published a post titled The Historical Roots of Patent Injunctions: Revisiting Horton v. Maltby (1783).  Very interesting post, thought I remain unconvinced that U.S. courts are legally obligated to consider ongoing infringement inherently to constitute irreparable harm, given the courts’ contemporary ability to award damages, including postjudgment damages for ongoing infringement.