Technology & Law

The law follows the technology...

Topics

CHINA RULES ON ADJUSTED ROYALTY BASE FOR SEP LICENSING

First posted on spicyip.com on 29.03.2015 Earlier this month the Chinese Anti-trust authority (NDRC) gave its decision in the Qualcomm matter involving Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law (AML).  This decision is a landmark decision where Qualcomm was found to have engaged in anti-competitive conduct relating to the licensing of standard essential patents (“SEPs”) for wireless communication technology and baseband chip sales.  The original decision is available here.  While a summary of the decision (based on Google translate) is also provided in this post, I have put in my comments in italics and I compare the approach taken by Indian courts / competition commission and the Chinese NDRC.  Image... Continue reading

LIMITING ROYALTIES FOR SEPS TO ‘CLAIMED’ INVENTION

First posted on spicyip.com on 18.01.2015 In a decision issued by the US Federal Circuit that will have major repercussion on the evaluation models for standard essential patents (SEPs), the  court gave substantial guidelines for determining an appropriate royalty base on which a royalty figure may be applied. In VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (No. 2013-1489), the appeals court held that the district court had wrongly instructed the jury that in determining the royalty base for calculating damages, it should not use the value of the entire accused product unless “the product in question constitutes the smallest saleable unit containing the patented feature.” This logic can be... Continue reading

VRINGO V. ZTE: DHC VACATES INJUNCTION AGAINST ZTE

First published on spicyip.com on 10.08.2014Our readers would remember that some time back we had carried a post on the dispute between Vringo & ZTE.  As a background, Vringo had filed two different law suits against ZTE.  One law suit was filed by Vringo / Vringo Infrastructure Inc.  against ZTE India, and Xu Dejun in November 2013 (“Nov. law suit”), and we had covered this law suit in our post in great detail.  The Nov. law suit alleged that ZTE had infringed Vringo’s Indian patent 243980 (‘980 patent).  The ‘980 patent relates to provisioning for a mobile station operable with a network and a packet data serving node.  An injunction was granted on Nov. 8, which injunction was la... Continue reading