Today, MacRumor passes along an analyst's estimate (i.e., rumor) Apple Paid an Estimated $5-$6 Billion to Settle Qualcomm Dispute, Plus $8-$9 Per iPhone in Royalty Fees.
Copyright © 2019 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label mobile computing patent wars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mobile computing patent wars. Show all posts
Thursday, April 18, 2019
Monday, March 18, 2019
Law360 - Qualcomm Wins $31M From Apple In Smartphone Patent Trial
Law360 reports Qualcomm Wins $31M From Apple In Smartphone Patent Trial.
Copyright © 2019 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2019 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, January 15, 2019
Venture Beat - Apple and Qualcomm offer billion-dollar sob stories at FTC antitrust trial
In Venture Beat, Jeremy Horwitz reports Apple and Qualcomm offer billion-dollar sob stories at FTC antitrust trial.
The article gives more details on the negotiations leading to the FTC trial than what is described in Wired - The FTC Thinks You Pay Too Much For Smartphones. Here’s Why. For example, the article mentions initially Apple was willing to pay $7.50/phone in 2011 and meet other conditions including advocate against a budding wireless standard WiMax. Then Qualcomm decided to leverage the need for the CDMA chips used by Verizon on the sale of other chips and increase the patent license from $7.50/phone to $8-10/phone plus retain exclusivity. It looks like the "straw that broke the camel's back" as Apple had further developed Intel as a second source for the chips.
Copyright © 2019 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
The article gives more details on the negotiations leading to the FTC trial than what is described in Wired - The FTC Thinks You Pay Too Much For Smartphones. Here’s Why. For example, the article mentions initially Apple was willing to pay $7.50/phone in 2011 and meet other conditions including advocate against a budding wireless standard WiMax. Then Qualcomm decided to leverage the need for the CDMA chips used by Verizon on the sale of other chips and increase the patent license from $7.50/phone to $8-10/phone plus retain exclusivity. It looks like the "straw that broke the camel's back" as Apple had further developed Intel as a second source for the chips.
Copyright © 2019 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Monday, January 14, 2019
Wired - The FTC Thinks You Pay Too Much For Smartphones. Here’s Why
In Wired, The FTC Thinks You Pay Too Much For Smartphones. Here’s Why, FTC is investigating if Qualcomm has committed an antitrust violation (a "tax" on cell phones that drives up prices and hurts competition) in demanding 5% of the value of a cell phone up to $20 max for licensing its patented wireless technology to Apple and Huawei.
From the article:
"Qualcomm charges companies like Apple a set percentage of the total price of a phone in exchange for the right to use its technology, according to the antitrust suit filed by the FTC. The percentages vary, but Qualcomm generally charges 5 percent of the value of a device, up to a maximum of about $20 per device, according to a legal brief filed by Qualcomm. Phone makers like Apple and Huawei argue that Qualcomm demands a larger cut of each phone sale than is fair, but that they pay because Qualcomm essentially threatens to cut off their supply of important wireless chips if they don’t. The FTC describes this as a "tax" on cellular phones that drives up prices and hurts competition.
In court Friday, Apple executive Tony Blevins accused the chipmaker of strong-arm tactics. Blevins said that during negotiations in 2013, Qualcomm president Cristiano Amon told him, "I'm your only choice, and I know Apple can afford to pay it,” CNET reports."
It appears Apple was able to buy its replacement chips from its second source Intel but incurred some delays as it scrambled to integrate the Intel chips to cover for Qualcomm's refusal to reduce its price. It sounds like the mobile computing patent wars have resumed.
Copyright © 2019 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
From the article:
"Qualcomm charges companies like Apple a set percentage of the total price of a phone in exchange for the right to use its technology, according to the antitrust suit filed by the FTC. The percentages vary, but Qualcomm generally charges 5 percent of the value of a device, up to a maximum of about $20 per device, according to a legal brief filed by Qualcomm. Phone makers like Apple and Huawei argue that Qualcomm demands a larger cut of each phone sale than is fair, but that they pay because Qualcomm essentially threatens to cut off their supply of important wireless chips if they don’t. The FTC describes this as a "tax" on cellular phones that drives up prices and hurts competition.
In court Friday, Apple executive Tony Blevins accused the chipmaker of strong-arm tactics. Blevins said that during negotiations in 2013, Qualcomm president Cristiano Amon told him, "I'm your only choice, and I know Apple can afford to pay it,” CNET reports."
It appears Apple was able to buy its replacement chips from its second source Intel but incurred some delays as it scrambled to integrate the Intel chips to cover for Qualcomm's refusal to reduce its price. It sounds like the mobile computing patent wars have resumed.
Copyright © 2019 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Sunday, December 23, 2018
IAM - After China Win, Qualcomm Follows Up with A German Injunction
Joff Wild's article IAM After China Win, Qualcomm Follows Up with A German Injunction suggests China is stepping up its patent enforcement game.
China has been more lax in enforcing patents than the United States until recently. For many years, US courts automatically granted injunctions after a patent was held valid, enforceable, and infringed. 35 U.S.C. §154 suggested that they should be granted given a patent grants the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention in the United States during the patent term.
But that routine grant of injunctions really stopped after EBay v. MercExchange. There the Supreme Court repudiated the Federal Circuit's practice of automatically granting injunctions. It recognized courts should grant injunctions in accordance with equity to prevent violation of patent rights on such terms as the court deems reasonable. 35 U.S.C. § 283. EBay basically set up some hurdles after a patent owner won its case. Going forward the patent owner seeking a permanent injunction would also need to demonstrate it satisfied a four factor test:
(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury;
(2) that remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury;
(3) that considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity
is warranted; and
(4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.
Courts can grant permanent injunctions as part of a final judgment between competitors, but proving the four factors can be a challenge for patent owners when it involves non-competitors in the United States. Even though injunctions are becoming more common in China and Germany it was surprising to see how rapidly a chip designer such as Qualcomm was granted a preliminary injunction (not easy to get in the USA) against the Apple iPhone in China and a permanent injunction in Germany with no injunctive relief in sight in United States. Yes, these events suggest key patent litigation disputes may be decided on the "other side" of the earth.
Copyright © 2018 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
China has been more lax in enforcing patents than the United States until recently. For many years, US courts automatically granted injunctions after a patent was held valid, enforceable, and infringed. 35 U.S.C. §154 suggested that they should be granted given a patent grants the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention in the United States during the patent term.
But that routine grant of injunctions really stopped after EBay v. MercExchange. There the Supreme Court repudiated the Federal Circuit's practice of automatically granting injunctions. It recognized courts should grant injunctions in accordance with equity to prevent violation of patent rights on such terms as the court deems reasonable. 35 U.S.C. § 283. EBay basically set up some hurdles after a patent owner won its case. Going forward the patent owner seeking a permanent injunction would also need to demonstrate it satisfied a four factor test:
(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury;
(2) that remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury;
(3) that considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity
is warranted; and
(4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.
Courts can grant permanent injunctions as part of a final judgment between competitors, but proving the four factors can be a challenge for patent owners when it involves non-competitors in the United States. Even though injunctions are becoming more common in China and Germany it was surprising to see how rapidly a chip designer such as Qualcomm was granted a preliminary injunction (not easy to get in the USA) against the Apple iPhone in China and a permanent injunction in Germany with no injunctive relief in sight in United States. Yes, these events suggest key patent litigation disputes may be decided on the "other side" of the earth.
Copyright © 2018 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Monday, December 10, 2018
CNBC - Apple recovers losses after Chinese court bans sale of most iPhones
The CNBC article Apple recovers losses after Chinese court bans sale of most iPhones tells us Qualcomm was able to get an injunction that bans sale of iPhones in China. A few infringed Qualcomm patents can apparently shut down significant iPhone sales in China. Even if the injunctive relief is overturned this sounds disruptive.
Copyright © 2018 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2018 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Saturday, June 30, 2018
NY Times - Apple and Samsung End Smartphone Patent War
In Apple and Samsung End Smartphone Patent War, the NY Times argues the patent war that began in 2011 was a waste because the technology is outdated and became largely a fight about money rather than an exclusion of infringing Samsung phones.
This article doesn't make sense to me. Successful tech companies management would not engage in patent litigation unless it was economically rational. So should we jump in after the fact and speculate they after careful consideration wasted time and money? One way to consider if it is wasteful is to take the value of infringing a patent multiplied by the probability of a successful defense. If that product is greater than the cost of defense, the defendant should litigate as a matter of economics. This appears to be Samsung's approach. I am not sure how they conclude hundreds of millions were spent on defense even after seven years of patent litigation. On the other hand, if you own patents like Apple and are a marketplace leader, you would be rational to enforce the patents against others copying or infringing to catch up. Otherwise you encourage many others to free ride off your R&D.
Samsung had seven years of patent litigation and setbacks and victories that should have been opportunities to settle the cases. Yet Samsung didn't and managed to whittle down the damage awards. However, a jury ordered Samsung to pay Apple $539 million for patent infringement in May. This is a large value for infringing the patents, the defense had failed, and shortly after Samsung settles. Santa Clara University law professor Brian Love claims the litigation "didn't really accomplish anything" because "at the end of the day, no products went off the market." I have trouble accepting this "didn't really accomplish anything" given the likelihood substantial money was transferred to Apple in settlement after the $539 million award. Finally, the Apple and Samsung phones contain the patented technologies the article says is long outdated. Again, nothing in the article to support this claim.
Rutgers law professor Michael Carrier saying "the case is likely to serve as a lesson that 'the courtroom is not always the place to try to get ahead" sounds right but to me Apple was not trying to get ahead; Samsung was trying to catch up and decided to infringe/copy patented features and Apple said not so fast and sued after failing to reach a settlement.
Professor Carrier's statement "there’s always the trade-off between litigation and innovation, and in the time these companies spent in the courtroom, they weren’t innovating." This lost time idea might make more sense for a small company but appears inapplicable to Samsung and Apple given that large tech companies largely insulate key innovators from the litigation. Moreover, reasonable litigation of patent rights should protect the incentive to innovate.
Copyright © 2018 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
This article doesn't make sense to me. Successful tech companies management would not engage in patent litigation unless it was economically rational. So should we jump in after the fact and speculate they after careful consideration wasted time and money? One way to consider if it is wasteful is to take the value of infringing a patent multiplied by the probability of a successful defense. If that product is greater than the cost of defense, the defendant should litigate as a matter of economics. This appears to be Samsung's approach. I am not sure how they conclude hundreds of millions were spent on defense even after seven years of patent litigation. On the other hand, if you own patents like Apple and are a marketplace leader, you would be rational to enforce the patents against others copying or infringing to catch up. Otherwise you encourage many others to free ride off your R&D.
Samsung had seven years of patent litigation and setbacks and victories that should have been opportunities to settle the cases. Yet Samsung didn't and managed to whittle down the damage awards. However, a jury ordered Samsung to pay Apple $539 million for patent infringement in May. This is a large value for infringing the patents, the defense had failed, and shortly after Samsung settles. Santa Clara University law professor Brian Love claims the litigation "didn't really accomplish anything" because "at the end of the day, no products went off the market." I have trouble accepting this "didn't really accomplish anything" given the likelihood substantial money was transferred to Apple in settlement after the $539 million award. Finally, the Apple and Samsung phones contain the patented technologies the article says is long outdated. Again, nothing in the article to support this claim.
Rutgers law professor Michael Carrier saying "the case is likely to serve as a lesson that 'the courtroom is not always the place to try to get ahead" sounds right but to me Apple was not trying to get ahead; Samsung was trying to catch up and decided to infringe/copy patented features and Apple said not so fast and sued after failing to reach a settlement.
Professor Carrier's statement "there’s always the trade-off between litigation and innovation, and in the time these companies spent in the courtroom, they weren’t innovating." This lost time idea might make more sense for a small company but appears inapplicable to Samsung and Apple given that large tech companies largely insulate key innovators from the litigation. Moreover, reasonable litigation of patent rights should protect the incentive to innovate.
Copyright © 2018 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, November 7, 2017
Joe Mullin - Supreme Court Won't Hear Apple v. Samsung Round Two
In Supreme Court Won't Hear Apple v. Samsung Round Two, Joe Mullin reports that the US Supreme Court has left in place Apple's damage award of $120 million for Samsung's infringement of US Patent No. 8,074,172 (auto correction), US Patent No. 5946647 (quick links), and US Patent No. 8,046,721 (slide-to-unlock).
For background details on this lengthy battle see the Supreme Court of United States blog: Samsung Electronics, Ltd. v. Apple, Inc.
Copyright © 2017 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
For background details on this lengthy battle see the Supreme Court of United States blog: Samsung Electronics, Ltd. v. Apple, Inc.
Copyright © 2017 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Thursday, December 22, 2016
Reuters - Nokia sues Apple for infringing patents, industry back on war footing
Reuters reports "Nokia Corp (NOKIA.HE) said on Wednesday it had filed a number of lawsuits against Apple Inc. (AAPL.O) for violating 32 technology patents, striking back at the iPhone maker's legal action targeting the one-time cellphone industry leader a day earlier.
Nokia's lawsuits, filed in courts in Dusseldorf, Mannheim and Munich, Germany, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, cover patents for displays, user interfaces, software, antennas, chipsets and video coding."
For more details: Nokia sues Apple for infringing patents, industry back on war footing.
Copyright © 2016 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Nokia's lawsuits, filed in courts in Dusseldorf, Mannheim and Munich, Germany, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, cover patents for displays, user interfaces, software, antennas, chipsets and video coding."
For more details: Nokia sues Apple for infringing patents, industry back on war footing.
Copyright © 2016 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
Federal Circuit - Apple v. Samsung - Obviousness
In Apple v. Samsung, the Federal Circuit reversed a jury verdict awarding Apple $119 million and invalidated two Apple's patents for obviousness on February 26, 2016.
The Federal Circuit held the asserted claims of US Patent No. 8,046,721 (slide-to-unlock) and US Patent No. 8,074,172 (automatic spell correction) would have been obvious given: (1) a strong prima facie case of obviousness (claims reciting a predictable use of prior art elements according to established functions), and (2) weak evidence of secondary considerations. For details see pages 14-35 of the opinion.
Copyright © 2016 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
The Federal Circuit held the asserted claims of US Patent No. 8,046,721 (slide-to-unlock) and US Patent No. 8,074,172 (automatic spell correction) would have been obvious given: (1) a strong prima facie case of obviousness (claims reciting a predictable use of prior art elements according to established functions), and (2) weak evidence of secondary considerations. For details see pages 14-35 of the opinion.
Copyright © 2016 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
Stanford Technology Law Review - Patents and Small Participants in the Smartphone Industry
Patenting in the smartphone industry? Better check out the Stanford Technology Law Review article Patents and Small Participants in the Smartphone Industry.
From the abstract: "This Article seeks to show how patent rights affect the ability of small participants to enter, compete, and exit smartphone markets. The study collected and used comprehensive empirical data on patent grants, venture funding, mergers and acquisitions, initial public offerings, patent litigation, and marketing research data. This Article shows empirically that small participants succeed in the market when they have a low and specific critical mass of patents and that this success exceeds the general norms in the startup world. Surprisingly, the analysis demonstrates that the level of financing and market success do not increase with larger patent portfolios. Lastly, despite the controversies over patent trolls, this Article demonstrates that patent litigation, whether from operating companies or NPEs, does not appear to be a significant concern for small players and does not appear to pose barriers to entry. The Article concludes by arguing that patent rights are providing incentives for innovation among small industry players and that contrary to some expectations, patent rights support competitiveness in the smartphone industry for small market players."
Copyright © 2016 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
From the abstract: "This Article seeks to show how patent rights affect the ability of small participants to enter, compete, and exit smartphone markets. The study collected and used comprehensive empirical data on patent grants, venture funding, mergers and acquisitions, initial public offerings, patent litigation, and marketing research data. This Article shows empirically that small participants succeed in the market when they have a low and specific critical mass of patents and that this success exceeds the general norms in the startup world. Surprisingly, the analysis demonstrates that the level of financing and market success do not increase with larger patent portfolios. Lastly, despite the controversies over patent trolls, this Article demonstrates that patent litigation, whether from operating companies or NPEs, does not appear to be a significant concern for small players and does not appear to pose barriers to entry. The Article concludes by arguing that patent rights are providing incentives for innovation among small industry players and that contrary to some expectations, patent rights support competitiveness in the smartphone industry for small market players."
Copyright © 2016 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Saturday, August 22, 2015
San Jose Mercury News - Apple v. Samsung: Court Rejects Latest Appeal
If you are interested on the latest on the Apple and Samsung patent infringement battle, the San Jose Mercury News reports Apple v. Samsung: Court Rejects Latest Appeal.
Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Friday, May 16, 2014
Apple and Google Settle Patent Infringement Cases
Today, Reuters reports Apple, Google settle smartphone patent litigation. Apple and Google did not agree to cross-licensing any IP so this doesn't preclude other patent infringement cases.
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Josh Lowensohn - Samsung hopes to make FaceTime a headache for Apple
Tonight, let's catch up on Samsung's counter-offense against Apple in the mobile computing patent war. See Josh Lowensohn's article Samsung hopes to make FaceTime a headache for Apple.
Given Apple is seeking over $2 billion for patent infringement, Samsung seeking $6.9 million doesn't sound like much of a lever for overall settlement. The PR angle is not too good either as Samsung purchased these patents from third parties. Samsung is an innovative company, but this lawsuit is not highlighting that fact.
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Given Apple is seeking over $2 billion for patent infringement, Samsung seeking $6.9 million doesn't sound like much of a lever for overall settlement. The PR angle is not too good either as Samsung purchased these patents from third parties. Samsung is an innovative company, but this lawsuit is not highlighting that fact.
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Larry Page - Lenovo to acquire Motorola Mobility - A Comment
Late January 29, in Lenovo to acquire Motorola Mobility, CEO Larry Page announced that Google had just signed an agreement to sell Motorola Mobility to Lenovo for $2.91 billion.
Mr. Page explains "we acquired Motorola in 2012 to help supercharge the Android ecosystem by creating a stronger patent portfolio for Google and great smartphones for users." He claims "both the Moto G and the Moto X are doing really well, and I’m very excited about the smartphone lineup for 2014. And on the intellectual property side, Motorola’s patents have helped create a level playing field, which is good news for all Android’s users and partners." Mr. Page concludes "Google will retain the vast majority of Motorola’s patents, which we will continue to use to defend the entire Android ecosystem."
Google is smart to sell Motorola to Lenovo and keep the patents, because it may generate another strong Android handset maker, it will allow Google to focus solely on improving Android software, and it will strengthen its own patent portfolio. The Motorola patents may prove useful in the future, but Motorola Mobility has not been winning many of its patent infringement actions in recent years. Motorola's patents have not so far created a level playing field. Beside the standard problem of getting through a court with finding of patent infringement, some of the widely used Motorola patents are standard essential patents (SEPs) subject to fair reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND). Thus, winning only results in relatively modest damages.
In selling the operating business and keeping the patents, Google has become a non-practicing entity (NPE) on a huge scale. Congress has let the patent litigation abuse concerns fuel bills that may adversely impact all NPEs. For example, see the bills including fee shifting if a patent owner loses. Hopefully, Google will help Congress to recognize this NPE distinction is not based on the law, nor actually anything and its lobbyists will focus patent reform efforts to more precisely target bad actors rather than all NPEs engaging in patent licensing and enforcement.
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Mr. Page explains "we acquired Motorola in 2012 to help supercharge the Android ecosystem by creating a stronger patent portfolio for Google and great smartphones for users." He claims "both the Moto G and the Moto X are doing really well, and I’m very excited about the smartphone lineup for 2014. And on the intellectual property side, Motorola’s patents have helped create a level playing field, which is good news for all Android’s users and partners." Mr. Page concludes "Google will retain the vast majority of Motorola’s patents, which we will continue to use to defend the entire Android ecosystem."
Google is smart to sell Motorola to Lenovo and keep the patents, because it may generate another strong Android handset maker, it will allow Google to focus solely on improving Android software, and it will strengthen its own patent portfolio. The Motorola patents may prove useful in the future, but Motorola Mobility has not been winning many of its patent infringement actions in recent years. Motorola's patents have not so far created a level playing field. Beside the standard problem of getting through a court with finding of patent infringement, some of the widely used Motorola patents are standard essential patents (SEPs) subject to fair reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND). Thus, winning only results in relatively modest damages.
In selling the operating business and keeping the patents, Google has become a non-practicing entity (NPE) on a huge scale. Congress has let the patent litigation abuse concerns fuel bills that may adversely impact all NPEs. For example, see the bills including fee shifting if a patent owner loses. Hopefully, Google will help Congress to recognize this NPE distinction is not based on the law, nor actually anything and its lobbyists will focus patent reform efforts to more precisely target bad actors rather than all NPEs engaging in patent licensing and enforcement.
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Sunday, December 22, 2013
Motorola Rushes to the USPTO With Sketchy Drawings - New Matter under 35 USC 132?
In Motorola Rushes Patent Filing for Ugliest Smartwatch, Patently Apple explains "Motorola under Google has to ensure they'll stay on top of new trends this time around" and so rushed a smartwatch application to the USPTO. Patently Apple says we will take the patent filing seriously if it was conceived by their on-site kindergarten class. After I chuckled a bit, I realized there is point to to make about this all too common practice of filing US patent applications with informal drawings.
Many patent attorneys file drawings just like those shown in the Motorola patent application and justify it by saying we wanted to lock in the earliest possible filing date and can always file formal drawings when the USPTO objects to the drawings. However, this approach ignores that if a court holds the amendment to the drawings introduced new matter, any patent claim depending on that drawing is open to a new matter challenge. Will the patent claim be invalidated? It will depend on the scope and nature of the amendments, but in amending the drawings, an applicant cannot introduce subject matter beyond that disclosed in the original application. Further, whatever you save by filing the application with informal drawings will be lost when formal drawings are required. More important, the formal drawing that looks great compared to the informal drawing may have set up an invalidity defense to any patent claim requiring the drawing for support.
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Many patent attorneys file drawings just like those shown in the Motorola patent application and justify it by saying we wanted to lock in the earliest possible filing date and can always file formal drawings when the USPTO objects to the drawings. However, this approach ignores that if a court holds the amendment to the drawings introduced new matter, any patent claim depending on that drawing is open to a new matter challenge. Will the patent claim be invalidated? It will depend on the scope and nature of the amendments, but in amending the drawings, an applicant cannot introduce subject matter beyond that disclosed in the original application. Further, whatever you save by filing the application with informal drawings will be lost when formal drawings are required. More important, the formal drawing that looks great compared to the informal drawing may have set up an invalidity defense to any patent claim requiring the drawing for support.
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Apple Awarded $290M for Samsung's Patent Infringement
Today, the federal jury in San Jose California awarded Apple $290 million in the retrial of part of the damages with respect to patent infringement by Samsung products. Although less than the $410 million awarded last year, with the addition of $290 million, Apple's damages total $929 million.
See FOSS Patents Retrial jury awards Apple $290 million, total damages in case against Samsung: $929 million and CNET's Jury reaches verdict in Apple v. Samsung damages retrial.
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
See FOSS Patents Retrial jury awards Apple $290 million, total damages in case against Samsung: $929 million and CNET's Jury reaches verdict in Apple v. Samsung damages retrial.
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Federal Circuit Chief Judge Rader Speech - Patent Law and Litigation Abuse
Federal Circuit Chief Judge Rader seems to relish poking the anti-patent crowd in the eye. On November 1, 2013, Judge Rader gave a speech Patent Law and Litigation Abuse in Plano, Texas.
Here's a passage from his speech:
"As an illustration of the crisis of confidence in the benefits of Patent Law, I wished to just discuss one unsubstantiated charge against the merits of this system of Constitutional dimension. Academics often charge the Patent system with creating a so-called "tragedy of the anti-commons." This academic canard suggests that a "thicket" of patents can actually inhibit innovation; that the administrative burdens of enforcing patents can multiply to frustrate the goal of the Act. Thus, the law of innovation supposedly works against itself. In an age of empirical research to verify every legal hypothesis, I would urge you and any policymaker to reject this academic supposition – whether it comes from a high court or any other source – until and unless it is verified by empirical data. By the way, the only studies on this topic that I have seen could not verify this guess but generally confirmed the opposite – that patents spur innovation.
May I offer a common sense rebuttal to this academic hypothesis? [Hold up my smart phone] This smart phone resides in the technological space most occupied by patents, perhaps in the history of patent law dating back to 1624. With design patents as part of the equation, this device probably includes easily more than a thousand active patents. If you count expired patents in this technology back to the advent of the computer age, this device would implicate tens of thousands of patents. If ever the administrative burdens of a concentration of patents would inhibit innovation, this technology would be the place to observe that encumbrance. Now you tell me: is this technology experiencing sluggish and encumbered innovation? I doubt that I could keep track of the pace of innovation in this technology if I devoted my full time to the project.
No doubt a study would show that the disclosure benefits of patents bring the entire world into the innovation circle that drives smart phone technology forward faster than any of us can fathom. I am afraid the “tragedy of the anti-commons” has its own tragedy: it simply is academic nonsense. The patent system does not inhibit
invention."
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Here's a passage from his speech:
"As an illustration of the crisis of confidence in the benefits of Patent Law, I wished to just discuss one unsubstantiated charge against the merits of this system of Constitutional dimension. Academics often charge the Patent system with creating a so-called "tragedy of the anti-commons." This academic canard suggests that a "thicket" of patents can actually inhibit innovation; that the administrative burdens of enforcing patents can multiply to frustrate the goal of the Act. Thus, the law of innovation supposedly works against itself. In an age of empirical research to verify every legal hypothesis, I would urge you and any policymaker to reject this academic supposition – whether it comes from a high court or any other source – until and unless it is verified by empirical data. By the way, the only studies on this topic that I have seen could not verify this guess but generally confirmed the opposite – that patents spur innovation.
May I offer a common sense rebuttal to this academic hypothesis? [Hold up my smart phone] This smart phone resides in the technological space most occupied by patents, perhaps in the history of patent law dating back to 1624. With design patents as part of the equation, this device probably includes easily more than a thousand active patents. If you count expired patents in this technology back to the advent of the computer age, this device would implicate tens of thousands of patents. If ever the administrative burdens of a concentration of patents would inhibit innovation, this technology would be the place to observe that encumbrance. Now you tell me: is this technology experiencing sluggish and encumbered innovation? I doubt that I could keep track of the pace of innovation in this technology if I devoted my full time to the project.
No doubt a study would show that the disclosure benefits of patents bring the entire world into the innovation circle that drives smart phone technology forward faster than any of us can fathom. I am afraid the “tragedy of the anti-commons” has its own tragedy: it simply is academic nonsense. The patent system does not inhibit
invention."
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Samsung Agrees To Not Seek Injunctions In Enforcing Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) In Mobile Communications for Five Years in Europe
ZDNet reports that Samsung waves white flag on patent wars. Perhaps a bit of hyperbole, but still a significant change in Samsung's strategy in enforcing standard essential patents (SEPs) in the mobile computing patent wars in Europe. Thanks to Suzie Lipton-Moll for passing on this article today.
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Samsung Can't Import Some Smartphones and Tablets - President Obama Won't Veto ITC Ban
On October 8, Bloomberg reports Samsung Loses Bid for Obama Veto of Apple-Won Import Ban. The administration vetoed Samsung's ITC ban, and now the reverse? Is the Obama's administration siding with an American company over a Korean one? It is not completely unreasonable to wonder after reading this article, because it is not that clear.
Even if the Obama administration was right to veto Samsung's ITC ban but not Apple's, it should explain how the different facts drove the different results.
Mr. Edward Black, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which counts Samsung and Google as members, claims the veto of the Apple import ban was based on political pressure and favoritism, which sounds plausible, but was not supported by evidence discussed in the article.
For more details Apple's patent infringement case against Samsung is "In the Matter of Electronic Digital Media Devices, 337-796, and Samsung’s case is In the Matter of Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers, 337-794, both US ITC.
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Even if the Obama administration was right to veto Samsung's ITC ban but not Apple's, it should explain how the different facts drove the different results.
Mr. Edward Black, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which counts Samsung and Google as members, claims the veto of the Apple import ban was based on political pressure and favoritism, which sounds plausible, but was not supported by evidence discussed in the article.
For more details Apple's patent infringement case against Samsung is "In the Matter of Electronic Digital Media Devices, 337-796, and Samsung’s case is In the Matter of Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers, 337-794, both US ITC.
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)