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.
Mystery Science: What Lemley and His Colleagues Get Wrong in Their Push for SCOTUS to Review TCL v. Ericsson
No Comments
Litigation
- Will SCOTUS Tell Bad Spaniels to Roll Over?
- DOJ Takes Key Step Toward Breaking Up Big Tech with Antitrust Complaint Against Google
- Federal Circuit Rejects St. Jude’s Challenge to Validity of Snyders’ Heart Valve Patent
- CAFC Affirms District Court Dismissal of Declaratory Judgment Under Doctrine of ‘Abstention’
- Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Finding that Immunex Antibody Patent is Obvious
Recent Posts
- American Innovators Express Support for Recent and Proposed Changes in Patent System
- This Week in Washington IP: Senate Commerce Committee to Grill Tech CEOs on Section 230, House Big Tech Antitrust Report and USPTO’s Quarterly TPAC Meeting
- Determining the Likelihood that an AI Patent Application Will Be Allowed at the USPTO
- Examining Samsung’s and LG’s LCD Patent Portfolios Following Decisions to Halt LCD Production
- Types of Subsequent Patent Applications in the United States (Part II)