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
- US Inventor Backs SCOTUS Petition to Clarify Claim Construction Principles
- Ericsson Wins Anti-Interference Injunction Against Samsung in Texas FRAND Case
- Supreme Court Will Review Doctrine of Assignor Estoppel
- Patent Filings Roundup: IP Edge End-of-Year Filing Spree, WSOU Ends Year as Top Single-Entity Filer; AC Competitors Go to War Over a Cool Million
- Alice in 2020: Slashing Software Patents and Searching for Functional Language at the Federal Circuit (Part I)
Recent Posts
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, January 22: Iancu and Peter Step Down from USPTO, CJEU Asked Whether Preliminary Injunction Standard Burdens Patent Owners, SCOTUS Denial Leaves Invalidation of Idenix Genus Patent Claims Untouched
- US Inventor Backs SCOTUS Petition to Clarify Claim Construction Principles
- Iancu Says Goodbye, Urges Commitment to ‘American Innovation Renaissance’
- Biden’s Opportunity to Protect American Innovation
- Washington Insiders Say Farewell to 2020 and Look Ahead to 2021