In December 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in a standard essential patent (SEP) appeal involving Ericsson and TCL Communication Technology—a closely watched case that many thought would shed light on what constitutes a FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) offer of a licensing royalty rate relative to standard essential patents (SEPs). TCL appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court on May 1 and several amicus briefs have now been filed in support of the petition being granted. Below are excerpts taken from the Summary of the Argument and the introduction to the Argument in the amicus filing by Mark Lemley and other professors. I’ve taken the liberty of providing my thoughts in the format of comments from the peanut gallery, or perhaps as a patent law equivalent to Mystery Science Theater 3000.
Litigation
- Judge Lucy Koh Tapped for Ninth Circuit Alongside Seven Other Biden Nominees to Federal Bench
- O’Malley Splits from Majority in CAFC Denial of Mandamus to Stop IPR Institution on Patents Subject to Arbitration
- U.S. District Court Holds that AI Algorithms Cannot Be Listed as Inventors on Patents
- Patent Damages Laws Regarding Apportionment are Inapplicable to Breach of Contract (FRAND) Claims
- CAFC: TTAB Never Had a Pre-Arthrex Appointments Clause Issue
Recent Posts
- IPWatchdog LIVE Event Wraps Up with Featured Speakers Makan Delrahim and Vishal Amin
- Iancu, Kilbride, Israel Separate Fact from Fiction During IPWatchdog LIVE Panel on TRIPS IP Waiver
- Qualcomm’s Mark Snyder Headlines IPWatchdog LIVE Day 2: ‘The U.S. Needs a New Innovation Policy’
- Tillis and Leahy Urge USPTO to Address Inconsistent Prior Art Statements by Patent Applicants at the FDA
- Report: Almost One-Third of IPR Proceedings are Settled