In withdrawing the 2013 statement, the new 2019 guidance by the DOJ, NIST and the USPTO states the obvious, i.e. that there is no difference in the law between F/RAND assured standard essential patents and all other patents. While some would have perhaps liked to break the unitarity approach of the patent system so as to weaken remedies against the infringement of essential patents, a legal system that would apply a different standard to standard essential patents as opposed to other patents would violate U.S. trade obligations.
Patent
- Enablement
- Fee Shifting
- Litigation
- Former Commerce, USPTO Heads Push for U.S. to Lead Opposition to Extending WTO’s COVID IP Waiver
- Patent Experts Urge Kanter to Reject Calls to Scrap Avanci Business Review Letter
- Answering the Question, ‘What is the Conservative View of Patent Rights?’
- USPTO, Copyright Office Joint Study on NFTs Could Help Dispel Confusion About IP Ownership in Media Content Underlying Digital Assets
- How French and California Contract Law Would Interpret SEP Patent Owner Obligations Under the ETSI Licensing Declaration
Recent Posts
- Former Commerce, USPTO Heads Push for U.S. to Lead Opposition to Extending WTO’s COVID IP Waiver
- Patent Experts Urge Kanter to Reject Calls to Scrap Avanci Business Review Letter
- Answering the Question, ‘What is the Conservative View of Patent Rights?’
- USPTO, Copyright Office Joint Study on NFTs Could Help Dispel Confusion About IP Ownership in Media Content Underlying Digital Assets
- How French and California Contract Law Would Interpret SEP Patent Owner Obligations Under the ETSI Licensing Declaration