Technology & Law

The law follows the technology...

Topics

A CRITIQUE OF THE DECISION IN UNWIRED PLANET V. HUAWEI (UK HIGH COURT - 2017)

On April 5, 2017, the UK High Court of Justice (Patents), Mr. Justice Colin Birss issued a detailed opinion [Unwired Planet v. Huawei ([2017] EWHC 711 (Pat), 5 Apr. 2017] in a matter involving SEPs and FRAND.  The Unwired Planet v. Huawei (hereafter "Unwired") decision is extremely contentious and this posts covers only the issues that I believe need further consideration. Disclaimer: I advise several clients in matters involving SEPs and FRAND.  These are my views only. Long post follows. Background:  Unwired Planet (Unwired) have a worldwide patent portfolio which they bought from Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.  The portfolio includes patents which are declared essential to va... Continue reading

QUALCOMM UNDER FIRE: KOREA FTC, US FTC, CLASS ACTION SUITS, AND APPLE

This (long) post is about Qualcomm.  Qualcomm has a business model that is based on IP, whether it is IP creation (SEP or manufacturing related) or IP licensing.  It has been the historical practice in the technology industry that licensing was, and per Qualcomm and related parties, still is, done on end value of device. Qualcomm, Ericsson, and Nokia are three top players in the SEP licensing domain and unsurprisingly hold similar views as their business model is SEP licensing.  For example, all three gave similar statements to the effect that they will not contribute to the IPR, under the new IEEE policy post February 2015, when smallest component value was inserted into the IEEE ... Continue reading

SAMSUNG GETS A FAVOURABLE RULING V. APPLE FROM THE US SUPREME COURT

In a crisp 10 page unanimous opinion, the US Supreme Court overruled the (unanimous) Federal Circuit decision.   The US Supremes held that an “article of manufacture” need not be the end product as was claimed by Apple and agreed with Samsung that the article could be an intermediate product or a component !!! “The Federal Circuit’s narrower reading of ‘article of manufacture’ cannot be squared with the text of §289. The Federal Circuit found that components of the infringing smartphones could not be the relevant article of manufacture because consumers could not purchase those components separately from the smartphones. […] But, for the reasons given above, the term ‘article of m... Continue reading