Patent Riffs and Links – Last News on 2017 Cases?

Federal Circuit Year in Review: Noteworthy Cases from 2017 | IPWATCHDOG
Reminds me of law school flash cards… “There were numerous decision made by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 2017. What follows is a brief summary of the most noteworthy decisions from 2017.”

Guest Post by Prof. Jorge Contreras: TCL v. Ericsson: The First Major U.S. Top-Down FRAND Royalty Decision | PATENTLYO
Fair enough? “In a lengthy and carefully crafted decision, Judge James Selna sets forth some important new points regarding the calculation of fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) royalties for standards-essential patents (SEPs). Among other things, the decision offers a strong endorsement of “top down” methodologies for the calculation of SEP royalties, and makes significant use of the non-discrimination (ND) prong of the FRAND commitment in arriving at a FRAND royalty rate. Equally importantly, the case establishes that, for non-discrimination purposes, even low end vendors like TCL will be considered “similarly situated” to high end vendors like Apple, giving them the benefit of the rates that high end vendors can negotiate with SEP holders for far more expensive consumer products.”

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit | JDSUPRA
Last week… “In both HTC v. Cellular and Microsoft v. Biscotti, the Circuit affirms rare IPR determinations that all of the claims of the patents at issue are not invalid. In Travel Sentry v. Tropp, the Circuit vacates summary judgment in favor of luggage manufacturers, after the district court had ruled that defendants do not infringe a patent on locks that may be opened by airport security workers. In its ruling, the panel takes an expansive view of Akamai v. Limelight, and holds that there are genuine issues as to whether the luggage makers have a close enough relationship with TSA workers to justify a ruling that they can infringe.”

The IP personalities of 2017 – part one 02 Jan 18 | IAM-MEDIA
“How do you make a very good patent transactions year great? Perhaps by announcing the signing of a royalty-bearing licensing deal with one of China’s technology titans just before Christmas. That’s what Nokia did on 21st December, when it confirmed an agreement with Huawei. This came on the back of a $2 billion portfolio-validating deal with Apple, which may be the biggest licensing agreement ever publicly-announced, and a major transaction done with Xiaomi, which Nokia’s CEO Rajiv Suri described as ‘a milestone win with a Chinese smartphone vendor, setting the stage for us to engage further with other vendors in the country. As the Huawei deal agreement shows, he was not wrong about that. And the good news for Nokia and its shareholders is that there are dozens more Chinese manufacturers to talk to in 2018.”

Defendants Waived Venue Challenge After Waiting Four Months After TC Heartland Decision to Move | GLOBALIPMATTERS
Too late? “MJ Payne was perplexed as to why defendants sat on their hands for four to five months after the TC Heartland decision to move. Accordingly, the court denied defendants motions to dismiss or transfer venue citing In re Micron (affirming a district court’s ability to find forfeiture when a party does not raise a timely objection to venue).”

Year in Review: Key Decisions from 2017 | PTABBLOG.LAW
A “look back on the most important decisions affecting PTAB practice of 2017 and look forward to what is coming in 2018.”

Judge Andrews Grants-in-Part Daubert Challenge to Damages Expert | DELAWAREIPLAW
Del. District Court – “For a second patent-in-suit, however, Judge Andrews found ‘no basis for concluding that he apportioned between the patented and unpatented features because the ‘only place where [the expert] appears to consider the profit attributable to the inventions, as distinguished from unpatented features, is in his discussion of Georgia-Pacific Factor 13 . . .”

The 2018 patent horizon: What should we expect? | AEI.ORG
Reform? “[I]t’s tempting to think that in a midterm election year, with budget and other battles looming, legislative patent reform will remain on the back burner…At the same time, President Trump’s Federal Trade Commission has signaled greater engagement in the debate, and many in the computer tech industry continue to press for changes that would stamp out what they regard as patent abuse.”

2017 CAFC Guidance for Patent Prosecutors | PATENTSPOSTGRANT
“First, the ‘new rejection framework stems from notice and due process concepts of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In patent prosecution and appeals before the PTAB, this procedural concern often manifests itself as a change in a rejection that so changes the ‘thrust of the earlier positions that it would violate due process to close prosecution or enter an appeal decision absent further opportunity for the Applicant/Appellant to respond on the merits.Turning back to Honeywell, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s decision rejecting numerous claims in two merged inter partes reexaminations.”