Qualcomm ramps up its patent battle against Apple by asserting six non-SEPs in Section 337 complaint filed with ITC

By Steve Brachmann
July 12, 2017

On Tuesday, July 7th, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) published a notice of receipt of complaint filed by San Diego, CA-based mobile chipset developer Qualcomm, Inc. (NASDAQ:QCOM). The Qualcomm complaint alleges Section 337 violations of patent infringement caused by the importation and sale of certain mobile electronic devices and radio frequency and processing components facilitated by Cupertino, CA-based consumer mobile electronics giant Apple, Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL)

According to a press release from Qualcomm on the complaint filed with the ITC, the semiconductor maker is seeking the ITC to issue a limited exclusion order which would block the importation of iPhone products that use cellular baseband processors other than those provided by Qualcomm or Qualcomm’s affiliates. “Qualcomm’s inventions are at the heart of every iPhone and extend well beyond modem technologies or cellular standards,” Dan Rosenberg, executive VP and general counsel at Qualcomm, is quoted as saying. “The patents we are asserting represent six important technologies, out of a portfolio of thousands, and each is vital to iPhone functions.”

The patents being asserted by Qualcomm in the Section 337 complaint at the ITC include:

  • U.S. Patent No. 8633936, titled Programmable Streaming Processor With Mixed Precision Instruction Execution. It claims a method which involves receiving an indication of a data precision used in the execution of a graphics instruction in a way that achieves more complex graphics processing without requiring more processing circuitry in a device.
  • U.S. Patent No. 8698558, entitled Low-Voltage Power-Efficient Envelope Tracker. It claims an apparatus having a boost converter to generate a boosted supply voltage in an efficient way to provide power to a power amplifier or other device circuitry.
  • U.S. Patent No. 8487658, titled Compact and Robust Level Shifter Layout Design. It claims a multi-voltage circuit to shift two bits from a first voltage level logic to a second one in a way that allows high-voltage and low-voltage to interface for improved integrated circuit performance.
  • U.S. Patent No. 9608675, titled Power Tracker for Multiple Transmit Signals Sent Simultaneously. It claims an apparatus having a power tracker that employs techniques for generating a power tracking supply voltage for a circuit that multiple transmit signals sent simultaneously.

A one-pager on the patents asserted in the ITC filing published by Qualcomm reflects a few unique aspects of these patents. None of the patents asserted by Qualcomm in its recent Section 337 complaint are standards essential patents (SEPs). This seems to be an attempt to rebut arguments Apple has previously made that Qualcomm employs abusive tactics in licensing its mobile processor SEPs in a way that violated Qualcomm’s responsibility to license those patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Qualcomm also notes that the patents that Apple’s devices practice without paying for a license have all been issued in the past six years, two of which have been issued this year alone. The company’s patented processing technologies have helped push peak download speeds supported in mobile modems from 1.8 megabits per second (Mbps) in 2006 up to 1 gigabit per second (Gbps) by the year 2017.

Along with the ITC filing, Qualcomm has also filed a patent infringement suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (S.D. Cal.) asserting the same six patents which are in the ITC Section 337 complaint. That filing cites aspects of Apple’s culture, including Apple founder Steve Job’s famous quote on stealing ideas, which has led to a company that today refuses to pay licensing fees to the tech developer who launched processors into the market in the first place. As the S.D. Cal. suit notes, the six patents asserted there and in the ITC complaint are only a fraction of the non-SEPs that Apple practices without properly licensing.

Reports that Qualcomm could pursue a patent infringement case at the ITC were coming out by early May when Bloomberg reported that sources close to Qualcomm said that the company was looking into the viability of filing a Section 337 complaint. For its part, Apple looks as though it will also ramp up its legal argument against Qualcomm in the case it filed this past January. A first amended complaint filed by Apple on June 20th in that case renewed Apple’s claims in the case and brought “new and expanded claims based on the continuing—and mounting—evidence of Qualcomm’s perpetuation of an illegal business model that burdens innovation.” It’s tough to see how a tech licensing company whose technologies have increased mobile processing speeds by 500 times from the earliest 3G cellular devices to today’s smartphones, but it will be interesting to watch Apple make its argument nonetheless.

The Author

Steve Brachmann

Steve Brachmann is a writer located in Buffalo, New York. He has worked professionally as a freelancer for more than a decade. He has become a regular contributor to IPWatchdog.com, writing about technology, innovation and is the primary author of the Companies We Follow series. His work has been published by The Buffalo News, The Hamburg Sun, USAToday.com, Chron.com, Motley Fool and OpenLettersMonthly.com. Steve also provides website copy and documents for various business clients.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 122 Comments comments. Join the discussion.

  1. Night Writer July 12, 2017 3:42 pm

    OT, but why do you think that some NPEs are doing well despite all the weakening of the patent system and the AIA.

    For example, InterDigital has been cited many times as a “troll”, but they are doing quite well over the last few years.

    https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/IDCC/financials?p=IDCC

  2. Tesia Thomas July 12, 2017 6:05 pm

    The trolls are cross-licensing is my guess.
    Aren’t Apple and InterDigital licensing buddies?

  3. Valuationguy July 12, 2017 6:26 pm

    Interdigital is doing well because it has extremely strong competence in the field of wireless technologies and is as pioneering (if not more so) as any of the MAJORs in the field. However it doesn’t PRACTICE any of its patents and is thus seen as a TROLL despite its inhouse R&D spending….which outstrips ALL its competitors on a percentage of revenues basis.

    You might use them as an example of ‘doing well’ but they are still embroiled in multiple lawsuits around the world….and they have only licensed about 25-30% of the addressable market of infringers of their technology….even with the recent Apple settlement. Its royalties should be about 6x what they currently are…if the efficient infringement lobby and the unconstitutional aspects of the AIA (i.e. PTAB) hadn’t crushed patent values in the U.S. by lowering the bar for invalidating and injecting even more hindsight analysis into the process.

  4. Night Writer July 12, 2017 7:06 pm

    @3 thanks for the assessment.

    It is–you must admit–an interesting case study. Maybe you are right about InterDigital. I don’t know. But, either they have a lot to offer as you say or they have figured out how to deal with the AIA and Alice.

  5. Benny July 13, 2017 5:53 am

    TT at 2, if I were an NPE i would cross license nothing.

  6. Anon July 13, 2017 8:07 am

    Good point Benny – the point of cross-licensing makes sense for those that are practicing entities, but makes little sense to take a license from someone else on something that you will not practice, and thus do not need to take a license for.

    In fact, the entire desire to inflate the “Tr011” narrative was because non-practicing entities had no need to cross-license, which throttled the M.A.D. Armageddon style business plan of Big Corp and their massive war chests of patents (you show me your patent and challenge me, and I am sure that I can find something to stop you from practicing).

    It was exactly at the point that the threat of stopping someone else was eviscerated because that someone else simply did not practice that the FICTION of how “bad” “Tr011s” are was put into hypergear.

    It has been nothing but a propaganda battle on that front ever since.

    The bottom line of course is that there is NO “must practice” requirement to holding the property right that is a patent right.

    None,

    And for good reason. Given the US patent law system and the promotion of innovation that is driven from follow-on improvements, there is NO room to force a “must make” paradigm into the system. A completely different person holding a baseline patent can be – and often is – separated from another who promotes progress with a follow-on invention, even while the baseline patent is in effect.

    People need to remember and understand the “negative right” nature of patents. It is quite evident on this and preceding threads that this nature has been confused with some notion of making product and making money through that product.

  7. Tesia Thomas July 13, 2017 8:52 am

    Benny and Anon:

    Definition of NPE-
    Related expressions are “non-practising entity” (NPE) (defined as “a patent owner who does not manufacture or use the patented invention, but rather than abandoning the right to exclude, an NPE seeks to enforce its right through the negotiation of licenses and litigation”

    So maybe everyone defines it however they want.
    Patents are make, use, and sale right.
    I thought licensing was a gray area. Or at least became a gray area with the patent troll narrative.

  8. Night Writer July 13, 2017 8:59 am

    Yeah, I don’t get how cross licensing could help a NPE. Maybe make their patents stronger? To you get to license a cross-licensed patent? I guess you could get that right.

    Still, what I have noticed about all this is that I have not seen a case study of the NPEs that were supposedly targeted by the AIA and Alice.

  9. Tesia Thomas July 13, 2017 9:06 am

    Well licensing would generate income that they otherwise weren’t making.
    And cross licensing would give them the freedom to use competitor tech to build off ofc without worrying about infringing.

  10. Tesia Thomas July 13, 2017 9:17 am

    And if NPEs don’t license then Night Writer can’t say InterDigitsl is an NPE.
    They have licenses with Apple

  11. Anon July 13, 2017 9:38 am

    And cross licensing would give them the freedom to use competitor tech to build off ofc without worrying about infringing.

    Freedom to use

    To use.

    Someone clearly is not paying attention when “to use” is (again) offered to the point of “not practicing.”

    Tesia – please think things through a bit more.

  12. Anon July 13, 2017 9:46 am

    .,,and Tesia, even IF they have a cross-license, the presence of such a license does NOT change them from a non-practicing entity into a practicing entity.

    Only actually practicing can change that, and there is no causal relationship from a license to such an action. Lacking the actual action, they remain a non-practicing entity (albeit a non-practicing entity with a cross-license to do something that they are not doing).

  13. Tesia Thomas July 13, 2017 10:51 am

    Right but R&D is use.
    Non commercial use is infringement. Just probably less litigated.
    R&D to combine Apple tech with new standard setting stuff is use.
    So they’re not an NPE if they’re using someone else’s stuff to perform r&d.
    Especially if theyre constantly trying to set standards because their company’s business model centers around SEPs.

    If I’m Apple and I like InterDigital then I say,
    “Hey I’ll give you the right to my iPhone components to play with it in your labs. You give me a discount on the sensors.”

    Then Apple can’t sue InterDigital for having the means to develop even better phone tech. Since R&D is use.
    Because Apple is working on sensors and other stuff that InterDigital makes too. Or Apple is licensing or working with many others.

    In this way, InterDigital is being shielded by Apple.

    “[T]he use of a patented invention, without either manufacture or sale, is actionable.”
    From case law.

  14. Tesia Thomas July 13, 2017 10:54 am

    link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-540-88743-0_8

    R&d is not purely experimental and thus not infringing if ID is trying to use everythimg it can to make standards setting tech

  15. Anon July 13, 2017 12:25 pm

    Tesia,

    You are not correct as to the meaning of “use” for practicing entities and pure R&D.

    Are you aware of the experimental use exception to the laws of infringement?

    Non-commercial use MAY be infringement, – but critically, it also MAY NOT be infringement.

    Your allusion to case law is incomplete – and you make assumptions on facts not present.

    For example, the entity is not an entity engaged in R&D and selling that activity as a service to others.

  16. Anon July 13, 2017 12:29 pm

    from your link:

    On the contrary, if the player intends to commercialize the possible fruits of the research, the use of the patented invention is generally deemed to be an infringement of the patent.

    and further down:

    As has been said many times, such an experimental activity can in no way harm the patent holder’s economic interests

    Commercialize the possible fruits is synonymous with being a practicing entity. We have already covered this ground.

    You remain incorrect – no matter how ardently you want to protest otherwise.

  17. Tesia Thomas July 13, 2017 2:37 pm

    No, there’s something called cross-licensing for cooperative R&D.
    I’m in this situation right now.

    If someone makes a component and wants to test their component in the actual use case then they ether have to buy a ton of the use case’s own product or gain some rights to it.

    Is InterDigital buyign up iPhones in order to conduct R&D?

    Commercialize=license
    They’re exploiting it for a profit.

  18. Tesia Thomas July 13, 2017 2:38 pm

    It goes by many names: cooperation, cross-licensing, joint venture…

  19. Tesia Thomas July 13, 2017 2:44 pm

    If Apple is giving InterDigital iPhones then it’s under some agreement that they don’t own iPhones but can use them to make better iPhones.

    I’m going through a similar situation now. I’ve just had an attorney draft an agreement.
    If they don’t buy it then the exhaustion doctrine doesn’t apply.
    And why buy something that you’re not going to sell and are just using to conduct R&D when you already have that same company licensing from you?
    That makes less sense than NPEs cross-licensing.

  20. Anon July 13, 2017 3:48 pm

    Tesia,

    InterDigitial does not produce anything. They are by definition a non-practicing entity.

    You continue to get basic terms plainly wrong.

    Do you realize that when you use certain terms in certain contexts (otherwise called terms of art), you need to NOT make up your own ‘views” and then act as if your :views: have any legal impact in the ensuing legal discussions.

    Please restrain yourself.

  21. Tesia Thomas July 13, 2017 8:38 pm

    Anon are you kidding me?
    Courts have confirmed that business research is a use and if you don’t have a JDA then you can be sued for damages.

    https://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_magazine_index/hatchwaxmanact.html

    One of the most important decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) addressing the common law defense is Roche Products, Inc. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., Inc., where the generic drug manufacturer intended to bring to market a generic version of a patented drug that was manufactured and sold by Roche. Bolar began conducting clinical tests required for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval before the expiration date of Roche’s patent. The CAFC relied primarily on 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), which stated that mere “use” of a patented invention, without either manufacture or sale, is actionable. It reasoned that experiments that are in keeping with the legitimate business of an alleged infringer are not exempt from infringement. The CAFC concluded that Bolar’s use was solely for business reasons and not strictly for philosophical inquiry. As such, the experimental use exception did not apply.

  22. Tesia Thomas July 13, 2017 8:45 pm

    http://corporate.findlaw.com/intellectual-property/the-looming-crisis-over-the-research-use-exception-to-patent.html

    in this case the uni didn’t have a license from its own researcher and was convicted of infringement.

    Can’t deny research constitutes use if even universities who historically are not manufacturing or selling anything are convicted of infringement.

  23. Anon July 13, 2017 9:09 pm

    Tesia at 21 – business research… to what ends?

    When those ends are shown that you are engaged in the market.

    Such is just not so here.

    Your own cites show how off you are.

    As to universities drifting away from the traditional research use exception, you should note that this is when Universities start entering the market and not just doing research.

    If you want to have a discussion, please sharpen up your analysis and get basic concepts down first.

  24. Tesia Thomas July 13, 2017 9:15 pm

    No. In the case law, Duke uni never manufactured or sold anything.
    They said using the professors laser was commercial due to the fact that research helps further the schools educational objectives.

    They said educational purposes was use.

    “On remand, the lower court found that even though the use of the patented invention was for educational purposes, it was still at least in part in furtherance of a legitimate business purpose and therefore did not qualify for the exception.”

    So Duke was an NPE

  25. Tesia Thomas July 13, 2017 9:17 pm

    NPE as you define InterDigital*

    But both Duke and InterDigital need a license to use other people’s stuff.

  26. Tesia Thomas July 13, 2017 9:23 pm

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterDigital

    In September 2016, InterDigital signed a license agreement with Huawei, and the companies agreed to “a framework for discussions regarding joint research and development efforts.”[19]

    Oh look a JDA! Why do you need one of those if NPE research doesn’t constitute use?

    I’m not an attorney but I have legal experience in dealing with these legal hurdles on a daily basis as any great CEO understands legal stuff.

    Just stop Anon. It’s great that you’re an anonymous attorney.
    You don’t understand this case law.

  27. Tesia Thomas July 13, 2017 9:41 pm

    Here’s an example JDA.

    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1510100/000119312511311405/d231495dex1012.htm

    Note the section on indemnification for r&d efforts.

    And, most importantly, note in “6. Intellectual property rights” that both parties give each other a license.

    License to use from the manufacturer (ERS) to the developer (Ximo).

    That’s your research case law lesson for the day.

  28. Tesia Thomas July 13, 2017 9:48 pm

    So InterDigital is doing well because it cross licenses with the efficient infringers.

    🙂

  29. Anon July 14, 2017 8:14 am

    Is InterDigital a university?

    Are they in the business of teaching for profit?

    Apples and oranges son.

  30. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 8:44 am

    They’re in the business of r&d so they have jdas with their business partners.

    It’s all furtherance of their business.

    You’re grasping at air Anon.

  31. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 8:45 am

    furtherance of a legitimate business purpose

  32. Anon July 14, 2017 10:07 am

    I am not the one grasping Tesia. If you review my comments, you will find each of them to be correct. Additional facts (regarding the business of InterDigital -for example, if they sell the fruits of their R&D efforts or not) may place them along a different point of the positions I have presented, but the positions I have presented remain true.

  33. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 10:23 am

    Yes you are.
    What research products do schools sell? Oh yeah…patents, r&d and educational services

    InterDigital would need to be doing R&D for purely philosophical reasons and not to make money at all.

  34. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 10:28 am

    Tell me about InterDigitals philosophical research please Anon.

    How would they qualify for the r&d exception of use as far as patent infringement?
    How?

  35. Anon July 14, 2017 11:00 am

    Tesia,

    My post (way) above stands correct:

    Tesia at 21 – business research… to what ends?

  36. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 11:14 am

    No. Answer the question.
    How would InterDigital qualify for the r&d exception?

    If I MAKE an iPhone, USE the iPhone I made to call someone, take a video to show that I did so, and NEVER sell it or build from it then I’d likely qualify for the exemption to infringement.
    I was just making one to prove I could or whatever.

    But, the USPTO no longer requires anyone to build or reduce an invention to practice so if you make one iteration of your technology with the intent of demonstrating its efficacy then you are making and using your product no matter if you ever sell any.

    That’s what the CAFC was saying in the Duke uni ruling.

    NPEs are actually those who patent something without ever making a version of it. Or else, case law invalidates what the NPE is because non-philosophical r&d is infringement.

  37. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 11:18 am

    wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_exemption

    Subsequent decisions later distinguished between commercial and non-commercial research.

    In 2002, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dramatically limited the scope of the research exemption in Madey v. Duke University, 307 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The court did not reject the defense, but left only a “very narrow and strictly limited experimental use defense” for “amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry.” The court also precludes the defense where, regardless of profit motive, the research was done “in furtherance of the alleged infringer’s legitimate business.” In the case of a research university like Duke University, the court held that the alleged use was in furtherance of its legitimate business, and thus the defense was inapplicable.

    InterDigital performs commercial research just like Duke. That’s the only distinction that matters.

  38. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 11:29 am

    If they only had constructive reduction to practice in filing a patent application then they’d be NPE.

    But actual reduction is MAKING the product. You are physically making it whether large manufacturing or 3d printing or whatever.

    And if you display and demonstrate the product in order to sell it then you’re using it.

    Anon if you weren’t anonymous then you’d be losing clients by now.

  39. Anon July 14, 2017 6:01 pm

    Yet again Tesia – read what I actually stated.

  40. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 7:25 pm

    “Business research…to what ends?”
    Is not an answer.
    Duke Uni and InterDigital are in the exact same category.
    They don’t sell anything. But they go beyond constructive reduction which means they must be making their products at the very least.

    NPE as you define it conflicts with CAFC ruling at best.

  41. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 7:46 pm

    I would even say that likely all NPEs aren’t ‘NPEs.’
    Intellectual ventures, small inventor tinkering in shop…
    if they do more than just file the patent.

    If R&D is enough for infringement then how isn’t it enough to be using and making your own stuff?
    WTF

  42. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 7:50 pm

    If R&D is enough for infringement then how isn’t it enough to be using and making your own stuff?

    That wasn’t rhetorical. I’d like an answer if anyone knowledgeable would be so kind as to enlighten me.

    Does anyone else see the conflict?

    Anon, this is fun. I think you’re incorrect. But, this whole debating is enjoyable as a learning tool.

  43. Anon July 14, 2017 8:09 pm

    “Business research…to what ends?”
    Is not an answer.

    Not only is it an answer, for a legal viewpoint, it is the best answer.

  44. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 8:11 pm

    So how was Duke uni engaged in business ends in the market, Anon?

  45. Anon July 14, 2017 8:12 pm

    Tesia,

    The law can be a cruel and conflicting mistress.

    For example, to your question of “how isn’t it enough to be using and making your own stuff” read the Supreme Court Wickard case.

    wiki at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

  46. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 8:19 pm

    That has little to do with infringement. It’s about regulating commerce.

    Anyway, Madey v Duke comes after that so overruled. Courts changed their minds if so. Haha

  47. Anon July 14, 2017 8:37 pm

    Anyway, Madey v Duke comes after that so overruled.

    Wickard is most certainly not over-ruled.

    Please stop pretending that you know what you are talking about.

  48. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 9:32 pm

    I meant overruled as in amended or narrowed. Just as Alice and Mayo narrowed Diamond.

    But the cases aren’t related so your point is moot.
    Wickard isn’t about patent infringement. Or are you saying that it is?
    How?

  49. Tesia Thomas July 14, 2017 9:36 pm

    Filburn = Anon’s red herring in our NPE/use/Infringement debate

    When you find Filburn’s patent then let me know.

  50. Anon July 15, 2017 12:15 am

    I meant overruled as in amended or narrowed.

    That too – dead wrong.

    And did I ever say that Wickard was a patent case?

    Hint: no. Maybe you should take a reading comprehension class (along with some basic logc classes).

    You are flailing – and flailing badly.

  51. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 12:21 am

    How does Wickard relate to InterDigital/Duke Uni?

  52. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 12:31 am

    And actually Wickard was narrowed:

    “According to Earl M. Maltz, Filburn and other New Deal decisions gave Congress “the authority to regulate private economic activity in a manner near limitless in its purview.”[7]
    *This remained the case until United States v. Lopez (1995),*

    which was the first decision in six decades to invalidate a federal statute on the grounds that it exceeded the power of the Congress under the Commerce Clause. The opinion described Wickard v. Filburn as “perhaps the most far reaching example of Commerce Clause authority over intrastate commerce”, and judged that it “greatly expanded the authority of Congress beyond what is defined in the Constitution under that Clause”.”

  53. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 12:38 am

    You’re completely trying to change this conversation.

    We’re talking about InterDigital being an NPE and if their R&D constitutes use/practice since actual reduction to practice is making prototypes/R&D efforts.

    How does Wickard relate to that?

  54. Anon July 15, 2017 8:21 am

    Let me say it again as you continue to have a difficult time reading what has actually been said:

    And did I ever say that Wickard was a patent case?

    Hint: no. Maybe you should take a reading comprehension class (along with some basic logc classes).

  55. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 9:20 am

    How does Wickard relate to the topic at hand?

    Enlighten me.

  56. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 9:37 am

    Hey Anon and everyone…
    More NPEs cross licensing:
    http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/07/15/nokia-xiaomi-patent-cross-license/id=85443/#

  57. Anon July 15, 2017 10:17 am

    Tesia – my role is not to enlighten you.

    You mis-speak (and abundantly so) and do so in your continuing underhanded “attack” on attorneys as some type of mechanism for them to step up and “share your pain.”

    I have NO “case to prove” opposite of your statements. All I need to do is show that your statements don’t hold water.

    And that I have done – repeatedly.

    Further, each apple to apple fact that I have mentioned remains true and remains UN-rebutted by you. It is YOU that turns and kicks up dust to attempt to hide the fact that the single points (point by point) that I present are – in fact – accurate points.

    I “get” that you want to have some other and different type of “debate,” one in which I prove some major counter position.

    I simply do not need to do so to dispel your FUD.

  58. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 10:54 am

    Look.

    InterDigital licensing proven business use:www.law360.com/articles/480328/high-court-rejects-nokia-call-to-keep-npe

  59. Anon July 15, 2017 2:40 pm

    You are glomming on to buzzwords and not diving deep enough into the articles.

    Defining what is and what is not a domestic industry is a wrinkle that you show that you just do not appreciate in how you want to bandy about the term “Tr011.”

  60. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 4:04 pm

    Still proves you wrong with a judges ruling.

  61. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 4:30 pm

    Business use …to what ends, you say Anon.
    Well the judge said the business ends are that licensing is use in commerce and its own domestic industry.

    The judge proves you wrong.

  62. Anon July 15, 2017 4:42 pm

    You ASSume that I am wrong, when I am not.

    Read again what I actually stated (and try to realize why my answer of “..to what ends” was the BEST possible answer).

  63. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 4:42 pm

    Domestic industry requirement includes r&d
    http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Domestic_industry_requirement

  64. Anon July 15, 2017 4:43 pm

    ps – you are still trying W A Y too hard to paint my comments as some type of “opposite position” when all my comments have to do is to dispel your FUD.

    You are not grasping the concept here.

  65. Anon July 15, 2017 4:44 pm

    r&d….

    To what ends?

    😉

  66. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 4:45 pm

    No you’re not grasping that you’re wrong. You throw out a red herring with Wickard.
    Then you now claim the definition is too weird.

  67. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 4:47 pm

    The judge said InterDigital met the domestic industry requirement.
    The domestic industry requirement includes r&d.
    Nokia was trying to get the case thrown out by saying InterDigital is NPE.
    Judge says the met industry requirement and are not NPE.

  68. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 5:39 pm

    Ooh. Gene Quinn agrees with me.

    http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/04/19/studying-ipr-ptab-repaired-replaced-repealed-congress/id=82203/

    Read his comment 18-19.
    Since I just don’t understand these things, I’ve appealed to a subject matter expert named Gene Quinn.
    🙂

  69. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 5:50 pm

    Oh, and it’s a valid form of “appeal to authority”, not fallacious.

    Tell Gene he’s wrong. I’m tired of talking to you.

  70. Anon July 15, 2017 6:16 pm

    For someone who is too tired, you keep on spouting….

    (and the Wickard case was directly in response to one of your off-target comments) – that’s quite easy enough to see.

  71. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 6:19 pm

    Tell Gene he’s wrong on the other comments.
    Since Gene 100% agrees with me: R&D = not NPE

    Then you can argue with someone who is an attorney since I don’t understand enough, as you claim.

  72. Anon July 15, 2017 6:20 pm

    As for the link you now show that you do not understand what Gene was saying in those comments.

    Stop. Think. Stop again. Think again.

    You are really messed up on this whole “Tr011” propaganda thing.

    Are you familiar with the historical perspectives of propaganda? You seem to want to see the world in such sharp tones of black and white that I have to wonder if you have any sense of the real world out there.

  73. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 6:26 pm

    Read again:
    “Of course, if you are knowledgeable about the industry you realize InterDigital’s success is because of a contractual agreement with those who agreed to pay InterDigital because they adopted the technological solution that InterDigital came up with. So if you are going to consider research and development companies as NPEs, which I know your employer does, then you might as well say that Apple is an example of a company that is doing very well despite not making anything. GE also has entire units that do nothing but own patents and other units that do nothing other than research and develop, which I know you don’t think is a legitimate business model.”

    Clearly defending R&D as non-NPE.

  74. Anon July 15, 2017 8:05 pm

    Are you really that thick, Tesia?

    Serious question.

    You seem unable to understand the context of the discussions in your aim for “Black/White.”

  75. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 8:07 pm

    Do you disagree with Gene?

  76. Anon July 15, 2017 11:57 pm

    Do you understand the context of Gene’s remarks (rather important before YOU think that YOU agree with him or not)?

  77. Tesia Thomas July 15, 2017 11:59 pm

    Answer my question.

  78. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 12:10 am

    Gene also says this:
    “When I say that patent filings are increasing in other countries and not in the U.S. that is a fact, not anecdotal. ”
    In comment 14.

    Wow. Yep I think he agrees with me.
    But what do I know. I’m not an attorney. And you shouldn’t be one. How much law experience do you even have?
    Do you call opposing attorneys arguments FUD in court? If youve ever been to court…

  79. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 12:25 am

    Gene and I say InterDigital is not an NPE because R&D constitutes practice.

    To answer your question, R&Ds end is making money. That’s why it constitutes use/practice.

    So do you agree or disagree with Gene and I?
    We both say patent fillings are on the decline in growth.
    We both don’t agree with you saying InterDigital is NPE.

    “InterDigitial does not produce anything. They are by definition a non-practicing entity.” -Anon

    Well they produce SEPs and even a judge ruled that licensing patents is engaging in market activity.

    “When those ends are shown that you are engaged in the market.” -Anon

    Yep That’s what the judge said. interDigital is engaged in the market.

  80. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 12:43 am

    You Anon : “InterDigitial does not produce anything. They are by definition a non-practicing entity.”

    Gene’s answer to you…
    “If you are going to consider research and development companies as NPEs…then you might as well say that Apple is an example of a company that is doing very well despite not making anything. GE also has entire units that do nothing but own patents and other units that do nothing other than research and develop, which I know you don’t think is a legitimate business model.”

    Still saying I don’t understand him?
    Ok well what don’t I understand.

    I’m sure I do understand his words.

  81. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 12:48 am

    In that comment thread, Shawn said exactly what you did. Named InterDigital as NPE.

    “I will name 3 “well-known” [NPE] entities which have higher stocks now: Interdigital, Rambus, and Tessera.”

    Gene answers Shawn and you in comment 18.

  82. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 12:53 am

    “business research… to what ends?

    When those ends are shown that you are engaged in the market.

    Such is just not so here.” -Anon

    ____
    ___

    “…research and develop, which I know you don’t think is a legitimate business model.”
    -Gene

  83. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 1:00 am

    Anon,

    “you are anti-patent. That is clear when you raise InterDigital as an NPE…
    …but I’m sure you’ll try and back pedal and misrepresent your way out of that.

    -Gene”

    Ta da. Gene definitely agrees with me. And I agree that you anti patent scum try to back pedal out of losing debates like so…

    …in Anon’s next comment he will say I don’t understand Gene…

  84. Anon July 16, 2017 8:09 am

    “InterDigitial does not produce anything. They are by definition a non-practicing entity.” -Anon

    What you misunderstand here is the definition of a non-practicing entity is being contrasted with the definition of a “Tr011.”

    You STILL are not grasping basic concepts and the context in which those concepts are being discussed.

    Gene’s discussion was focusing on Shawn’s OVER-inclusion of anything NPE as necessarily being a “Tr011,” (which is what Shawn’s business model attacks).

    That you think that I agree with Shawn and disagree with Gene – in the context of that conversation – shows that you do not understand the subject matter and my views on that subject matter.***

    If you are going to reference another conversation, please first understand the context of that conversation.

    As it is, all that you continue to do with your multiple posts is show that you do not even understand the discussion you are trying to engage in.

    As to
    “When those ends are shown that you are engaged in the market.” -Anon
    contrasted with “Yep That’s what the judge said. interDigital is engaged in the market.” – you yet again fail to see that my answer which you did not like is the BEST answer. The “to what ends” is a necessary predicate to fully understanding the terms being applied. You seem not to want to appreciate having that understanding before diving in with labels. Much like Shawn.

    ***As to:
    The trolls are cross-licensing is my guess.
    (the comment of yours kicking things off here) – it is YOU that is agreeing with Shawn with the unequivocal equating of NPE and “Tr011s”.

  85. Anon July 16, 2017 8:13 am

    (and with that last sentence of that last comment, we see that it is you that is back-pedalling her – not I.)

    Or do you not understand your own comment at post 2 (and how Gene disagrees vehemently with labeling an NPE as an automatic “Tr011” – AS YOU DID)…?

  86. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 10:30 am

    “you are anti-patent. That is clear when you raise InterDigital as an NPE…
    …but I’m sure you’ll try and back pedal and misrepresent your way out of that.

    -Gene”

  87. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 10:36 am

    We weren’t arguing about troll.
    You said InterDigital is NPE.
    I said they aren’t.
    Gene says they aren’t

  88. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 10:44 am

    .,,and Tesia, even IF they have a cross-license, the presence of such a license does NOT change them from a non-practicing entity into a practicing entity.

    Only actually practicing can change that, and there is no causal relationship from a license to such an action. Lacking the actual action, they remain a non-practicing entity (albeit a non-practicing entity with a cross-license to do something that they are not doing).

    You’re saying their r&d doesn’t make them not an NPE

  89. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 10:46 am

    I said the trolls are cross licensing because Night Writer called them trolls and troll just means anyone who defends IP.

    I never said ID was NPE. You did.

  90. Anon July 16, 2017 10:51 am

    Tesai,

    You might find this illuminating in your attempt to (blindly – or at least oversimply) apply the Madey v Duke case:

    http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/02/21/an-inconvenient-truth-patents-do-not-deter-research/id=15395/

  91. Anon July 16, 2017 10:53 am

    and troll just means anyone who defends IP.

    ….?

    How does this square with everything else that you have been talking about?

  92. Anon July 16, 2017 10:56 am

    Tesia,

    You are losing focus on the distinction – in context – between an NPE and a “Tr011” and why Gene was taking Shawn to task.

    As I indicated, you are venturing into a territory with terms of art and several levels of meaning – of which you do not know and of which you do not know THAT you do not know.

  93. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 10:59 am

    You said InterDigital was NPE.
    I said it wasn’t.

    Gene and Steve were talking about whether ID was NPE not troll because Shawn listed ID as a successful NPE.

    Gene was saying ID does not help Shawn because ID is not NPE

  94. Anon July 16, 2017 10:59 am

    You’re saying their r&d doesn’t make them not an NPE

    You are not paying attention.

    The answer I gave – the answer you do not like – the answer that IS the best legal answer IS what I am saying.

    to what ends…

  95. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 11:00 am

    R&d is practice

  96. Anon July 16, 2017 11:01 am

    Gene is ALSO saying that NPEs are not “Tr011s” which is at the heart of the contention between Gene and Shawn.

    You still are not getting these easy things.

  97. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 11:02 am

    R&d is practice which you don’t agree with.

    Those are the “ends”

  98. Anon July 16, 2017 11:02 am

    Tesia,

    Your statement at 95 is incorrect in that it is FAR too broad.

    You really do need to add my answer to that statement: “to what ends.”

  99. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 11:04 am

    R&d is practice because licensing ip is a great business method that qualifies one for being a business i industry.

    Mine, Gene, CAFC judge tell you the ends of r&d

  100. Anon July 16, 2017 11:04 am

    Tesia,

    Your statement at 97 is an illogical statement, My “agreeing” or not does not change the facts that one must include in the evaluation of “r&d” the answer of mine that YOU do not like: “to what ends.”

    Your statement of “r&d is practice” is a false statement because it is incomplete and far too broad on its own.

  101. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 11:05 am

    Model* not method.
    See Genes conment about you not thinking licensing patents is a valid business method

  102. Anon July 16, 2017 11:06 am

    Tesia,

    You have now added licensing to the mix, and such an addition feeds directly into my correct answer of “to what ends.”

    You are now arguing FOR my case.

  103. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 11:06 am

    Read 99 then where Gene, me, CAFC judge school you on r&d ends

  104. Anon July 16, 2017 11:09 am

    Tesia,

    It is YOU that needs to read the cases a bit more closely. I am even helping you with the link at post 90.

    “r&d” ALONE just does not get you where you want to be. You need my answer that you seem incapable of admitting to.

  105. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 11:09 am

    I mentioned liensing as early as 9.

    You said this
    “Only actually practicing can change that, and there is no causal relationship from a license to such an action. Lacking the actual action, they remain a non-practicing entity (albeit a non-practicing entity with a cross-license to do something that they are not doing).”

    You contradict yourself.
    To what ends = licensing but you said licensing isnt practice.
    You lose the debate

  106. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 11:11 am

    You said it Anon.

    Licensing not causal to practice

    “Only actually practicing can change that, and there is no causal relationship from a license to such an action.”

  107. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 11:15 am

    You say research is not enough.

    “InterDigitial does not produce anything. They are by definition a non-practicing entity.”

    And you also say licensing is not a causal action. And that ID doesn’t produce anything even though they license.

  108. Anon July 16, 2017 11:31 am

    You contradict yourself.
    To what ends = licensing but you said licensing isnt practice.
    You lose the debate

    Not so.

    You STILL have not admitted my answer – the answer that you do not like – is the best legal answer.

  109. Anon July 16, 2017 11:33 am

    Your item of 9 was shown to be deficient at 11.

  110. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 11:36 am

    R&D practicing is use if it’s for commercial purposes Anon.

    You’re blatantly contradicting yourself and now misrepresenting your comments.

    You didn’t even see that I said “licensing” as early as 9.

    I said R&D and licensing. You cross license when doing R&D because if not then you’re infringing with “use” of other company’s products.

  111. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 11:46 am

    12:
    “.,,and Tesia, even IF they have a cross-license, the presence of such a license does NOT change them from a non-practicing entity into a practicing entity.

    Only actually practicing can change that, and there is no causal relationship from a license to such an action. Lacking the actual action, they remain a non-practicing entity (albeit a non-practicing entity with a cross-license to do something that they are not doing).”

    20:
    “Tesia,

    InterDigitial does not produce anything. They are by definition a non-practicing entity.”

    23:
    “Tesia at 21 – business research… to what ends?

    When those ends are shown that you are engaged in the market.

    Such is just not so here.”

    32:
    “Additional facts (regarding the business of InterDigital -for example, if they sell the fruits of their R&D efforts or not) may place them along a different point of the positions I have presented, but the positions I have presented remain true.”

  112. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 11:48 am

    The points you’ve presented contradict your R&D + licensing = practice
    because
    InterDigital =R&D+license
    and you say InterDigital is a non practicing entity

    Stop with your FUD and contradictions and back pedaling.
    It’s all there in your comments.

  113. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 12:23 pm

    32:
    “Additional facts (regarding the business of InterDigital -for example, if they sell the fruits of their R&D efforts or not) may place them along a different point of the positions I have presented, but the positions I have presented remain true.”

    THEN
    ___
    __
    _
    102:
    “You have now added licensing to the mix, and such an addition feeds directly into my correct answer of “to what ends.””

    AND

    104:
    ““r&d” ALONE just does not get you where you want to be. You need my answer that you seem incapable of admitting to.”

    ___
    __
    _
    LOL. The back pedal.

  114. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 12:25 pm

    Your positions (spoken of in comment 32), just so you know what you said…

    12:
    “.,,and Tesia, even IF they have a cross-license, the presence of such a license does NOT change them from a non-practicing entity into a practicing entity.

    Only actually practicing can change that, and there is no causal relationship from a license to such an action. Lacking the actual action, they remain a non-practicing entity (albeit a non-practicing entity with a cross-license to do something that they are not doing).”

    20:
    “Tesia,

    InterDigitial does not produce anything. They are by definition a non-practicing entity.”

  115. Anon July 16, 2017 12:35 pm

    R&D practicing is use if it’s for commercial purposes Anon.

    You have now added another item (beyond JUST r&d) to the mix, and such an addition feeds directly into my correct answer of “to what ends.”

    You are now arguing FOR my case.

    As to “You didn’t even see that I said “licensing” as early as 9.” – wrong – I saw it right away and replied at 11.

    You keep on wanting to NOT credit what I have been saying all along: to what ends. As I said long ago – not only is this the correct answer, this is the perfect legal answer.

    This is NOT backpedaling by me, and yes, it’s all there in my comments, and my comments remain correct.

    Why are you having such a difficult time admitting that my legal answer is correct?

  116. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 12:37 pm

    your position contradicts your words now.
    Is InterDigital an NPE or not, Anon?

    I say it’s not. That’s what we were arguing.
    What do you say now?

  117. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 12:38 pm

    My argument from the beginning:
    InterDigital is not an NPE. They conduct R&D and license the fruits of that R&D.

    You said, “InterDigitial does not produce anything. They are by definition a non-practicing entity.”

    Do you still stand by that?

  118. Anon July 16, 2017 1:00 pm

    I stand by my legal answer – why are you not accepting that?

  119. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 1:02 pm

    Do you think InterDigital is an NPE or not?

  120. Anon July 16, 2017 1:07 pm

    See 115 – you are stuck there.

  121. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 1:09 pm

    Do you think InterDigital is an NPE or not?

    That’s what were are arguing. Do you still think that they are an NPE?

  122. Tesia Thomas July 16, 2017 1:21 pm

    you say licensing + R&D = non-NPE
    But, you say InterDigital, that licenses + R&D IS an NPE

    Doesn’t make sense.

Post a Comment

Respectfully add to the discussion.

Name *
Email *
Website