ip fray

Other than from ip fray, there was no member of the media or general public at yesterday's Unified Patent Court Mannheim hearing in InterDigital, Inc. v. Amazon. Physically in the room: two judges (the third participated remote, sitting at this office in robes), four lawyers per party. By contrast, a much larger courtroom was needed in November for the panel review of the September 30 ex parte injunction, where the outcome was much more predictable (affirmance) than this time around (where it was more likely than not that Amazon would fold, but there could also have been a broader settlement or other developments). Let's face it: the UPC has successfully asserted its authority and defended its jurisdiction against a Big Tech corporation. That fact alone made it a historic hearing. Yesterday's hearing was similarly instructive as the mid-November one and worth a trip involving three different methods of transportation plus 30-minute walks between Mannheim's railroad station and the courthouse just to unwind. The information we obtained warranted two articles: the first one to discuss the specific state of play, and the second to address items that are not (or at least not presently) central to that particular dispute, but of transcendental relevance. Despite the stakes and the interjurisdictional friction, the hearing was low-key. No emotional outburst by anyone, just solution-finding. The court made it as easy and as gentle as possible for Amazon to read the writing on the wall. Now let's see what they do in the UK.

USPTO, U.S. Department of Justice file 3rd joint pro-injunction brief since June in standards-RELATED but NOT undisputedly standard-ESSENTIAL patent case: next stop WILUS, Inc v. Askey? Radian Memory Systems argued that it was "iced out" from standards development. Netlist claims to own proprietary technologies, though Samsung Electronics has raised FRAND defenses. Collision Communications described its patents as non-essential and Samsung accepted, with only a temporary dispute over amended infringement evidence that was standards-related. The new aspect of Collision is that it's an NPE (unlike Radian and Netlist). Counsel for Collision: Caldwell Cassady & Curry PC’s Brad Caldwell, Chris Stewart, Justin Nemunaitis, Aisha Mahmood Haley, Austin Curry, Bailey Blaies, Hamad Hamad, James Perkins, James Smith, James Yang, Jason Cassady, John Summers, Robert Reich, and Alex G., as well as Andrea Fair, Charles Everingham, and Garrett Parish of Miller Fair Henry. Counsel for Samsung: Quinn Emanuel’s Kevin Hardy, Sean Pak, Victoria Maroulis, Brian Mack, John McKee, Austin Buscher, Brady Huynh, Brice Lynch, Joseph Reed, Nagendra (Nick) Setty, Olga Slobodyanyuk, and Patrick Stafford, as well as GILLAM & SMITH LLP’s Melissa Smith. https://lnkd.in/dsG4n7Ka

Unified Patent Court panel warns requesting expedited UK #FRAND trials may trigger sanctions: part II of InterDigital, Inc. v. Amazon coverage The previous article discussed the issues on which that particular dispute turns, but some other topics came up and could be outcome-determinative in future cases. https://lnkd.in/dMH9kUBa

Amazon backs down (pending appeal) after Unified Patent Court’s Mannheim LD finds it in breach of InterDigital, Inc.’s anti-interference injunction; further guidance The summary is free. Meanwhile the premium section is also done, but the complete list of counsel will be done later. Panel: Presiding Judge (and judge-rapporteur) Prof. Peter Tochtermann, Judge Dirk Boettcher ("Böttcher"), and (by video). Judge András Kupecz. Lead counsel for Amazon: HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER's Klaus Haft. Lead counsel for InterDigital: ARNOLD RUESS's Cordula Schumacher. Today, well-known UK lawyer Richard Vary of Bird & Bird participated in person. https://lnkd.in/d_NMZYeA

As Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount enter Day 2 of their interim-license hearing in London with Nokia, the likelihood of a merger between the two streamers appears to have increased to 95%+. For the context of the video patent litigation, they practically merged months ago. Netflix, which faced challenges in securing approval from competition regulators, has withdrawn from the bidding war. Initially, the WBD board signed a deal with Netflix and was not open to offers from Paramount Skydance. However, WBD continued to enhance its bids, leading to a shift in the board's stance. Then Netflix was told it had to make a better offer, and it declined. Cinema operators and many movie makers, even legends like James Cameron, favored Paramount from the beginning given its tradition as a studio. Some left-wingers, also among WBD's staff, saw that Paramount had moved CBS out of the left part of the political spectrum and didn't want the same to happen to CNN.

A new precedential decision by the Federal Circuit is all about showing that for summary judgment purposes, even some very weak arguments are not necessarily unreasonable. Global Tubing, LLC v. Tenaris is a cross-appeal from S.D. Tex. where either side won something on summary judgment, and the Fed. Cir. has now vacated all of those SJ decisions. The more interesting part is about inequitable conduct (which was then also linked to a Walker Process Equipment claim, i.e., a monopolization claim centered around an ill-gotten patent). There's some suspicious stuff there: a patentee by coincidence withheld particular pages from a document from a defunct (then acquired) rival; an internal email that said it was not a good idea to present something to the USPTO; and so forth. One can read between the lines that the patentee and its key internal witness made various claims that the Fed. Cir. judges probably wouldn't buy if they were on a jury. There's an insinuation of "post-hoc rationalizations". But the Fed. Cir. is an appeals court and has to decide whether SJ was warranted. It concluded that ultimately the questions would have to be put before a jury. There's also a part about "but-for material" prior art: would the USPTO clearly not have granted a patent application if all the disclosures had been made? Here, what's interesting is a range overlap that consists just in one point (the upper boundary of one range is the lower boundary of another). The fact that there are other patents in the family that were granted despite full disclosure is among the ones for which the Fed. Cir. finds it's not certain that the application wouldn't have succeeded but for the allegedly fraudulent conduct. Panel: Circuit Judges Richard Taranto, Todd Hughes, and Leonard Stark (author of the per curiam). Counsel for plaintiff: MoloLamken LLP's Jeffrey A. Lamken, Rayiner Hashem, Walter Hawes, Caleb Hayes-Deats, and Eugene Sokoloff; and Yetter Coleman LLP's Jeffrey Andrews, Chris Johnson, Richard Yetter, and Matthew Zorn. Counsel for defendant: Kirkland & Ellis's John O'Quinn, Bill Burgess, Ashley Cade, Erin Cady, Annie Chiang, Megan Butler, Matt Owen, Jason Wilcox, and Leslie Schmidt; and Ward and Smith, P.A.'s Mark Wigley. https://lnkd.in/dXjXTCpe

Unified Patent Court Mannheim LD rejects “strictly geometric” interpretation of “greater than or equal” in laser patent dispute, grants injunction The court did not even have to reach the Doctrine of Equivalents. It identified a literal infringement. Quite an accomplishment for the winning side and an invitation to other patentees whose infringement allegations need a purposive interpretation to succeed. Panel: Presiding Judge Prof. Peter Tochtermann, Judge-rapporteur Tobias Sender (this is probably his first final judgment as judge-rapporteur), Judge András Kupecz, and Technically Qualified Judge Dr. Stefan Wilhelm. Counsel for prevailing plaintiff TRUMPF Laser: Gleiss Lutz Dr. Matthias Sonntag, Dr. Benedikt Burger, and Mischa Krumm; as well as WITTE WELLER PATENTANWÄLTE patent attorney Dr. Andreas Eisele . Counsel for defendant and soon-to-be appellant IPG: peterreins schley’s Dr. Frank Peterreins. https://lnkd.in/dk8-g-iu

Nokia pulls a Huawei against Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount: prepared to grant interim license FREE CONTENT https://lnkd.in/dh_BpYUM

Takeoff with BLADE for the Unified Patent Court Mannheim contempt hearing in InterDigital, Inc. v. Amazon. If the matter wasn't as serious as it is (IP protection against gamesmanship and usurpation), it would feel like traveling to a Champions League final.

Check out the latest story in ip fray spotlighting our upcoming Via Business Summit in Rome next month: https://lnkd.in/exe-8FSW   One of the “premier” events in the IP licensing space, this invite-only Summit (March 17–20) will bring together industry leaders for licensor meetings, high-impact networking, an IP conference, and curated experiences throughout the city.   We’re also grateful for the support of our sponsors: Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, COHAUSZ & FLORACK, Licks Attorneys, Devlin Law Firm, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG, EIP, and Venable LLP.   Hard to believe we’re less than three weeks away from convening in Rome. Looking forward to seeing many of you there. #ViaBusinessSummit #CollaborativeLicensing #PatentLicensing