Posts in District Courts

The TC Heartland decision strikes me as more anti-business than it is anti-patent. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision all patent owners will now be forced to seek remedy for patent infringement where the defendant is incorporated or where the infringing defendant has a significant place of business. In other words, all patent owners will in theory have to fight patent infringement disputes against domestic corporations on the home turf of the infringer… It also seems unlikely that TC Heartland will do anything about any lingering patent troll problem. As long as America’s technology companies continue to pay extortion there will be bad actors. Trolls will be trolls whether it is in the Eastern District of Texas or somewhere else, and it is recklessly naïve for anyone to think otherwise.

Arista Networks (NYSE:ANET) was recently successful in its attempts to overturn the validity of a patent held by San Jose, CA-based tech multinational Cisco Systems (NASDAQ:CSCO). The recent ruling of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) clears the way for Arista to overturn a ruling of the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which has prevented Arista from importing and selling networking equipment in the U.S. due to patent infringement violations.

The Court first addressed whether the district court’s decision awarding Halo pre- and post-judgment interest and ordering the parties to either file a stipulation on the amount of interest or file briefs explaining their positions constituted a “final decision” appealable under § 1295(a)(1). The Court noted that the district court had not resolved the parties’ dispute on the calculation of pre- and post-judgment interest before Pulse appealed. As a result and based on Supreme Court precedent, the Court found that the district court’s pre- and post-judgment interest decision was not “final” because the court had not “determine[d], or specif[ied] the means for determining the amount” of interest.

BlackBerry Ltd (NASDAQ:BBRY) announced that it had reached an agreement with San Diego, CA-based semiconductor designer Qualcomm, Inc. (NASDAQ:QCOM) to resolve arbitration proceedings over tech royalty payments made between the companies. Terms of the agreement involve Qualcomm paying BlackBerry a total of $940 million to account for net royalties due to BlackBerry during 2016’s calendar year and 2017’s first quarter. The announcement indicates that the payment were to be made before or on May 31st.

On Tuesday, May 30th, online legal news outlet Law360 reported that a trio of major automakers filed a motion asking a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (E.D. Tex.) to toss a patent infringement suit filed last May by Longview, TX-based patent licensing firm Stragent LLC. Reportedly, the automaker defendants argue that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group forecloses the case from being decided in E.D. Tex.

The $43.5 million from the recent Spotify settlement will reportedly go towards a separate fund to compensate publishers and songwriters. Such payments made by Spotify and other streaming services to copyright owners are known as mechanical royalties. Mechanical royalties are usually paid when a copy of a song is made, such as when a music publisher creates a CD containing copyright-protected songs. Although Spotify doesn’t sell or distribute physical media, it does owe mechanical royalties when it streams a copy of a song to a user.

An ITC administrative law judge issued a final initial determination finding Section 337 patent infringement violations committed by various entities, including Philadelphia-based telecom firm Comcast Corporation (NASDAQ:CMCSA), in light of two patents asserted by TiVo… News reports indicate that a final ruling on this Section 337 investigation is expected on September 26th after a full investigation, at which point the ITC could decide to block infringing products being imported by Comcast and others in the investigation from entering the U.S. market. In the first full day of trading after TiVo filed that 8-K with the SEC, shares of the company rose by about 17 percent.

The current extraterritorial reach of U.S. trade secret law may seem ironic given trade secret law’s “local” roots. In the United States, common law trade secret principles emerged through a diverse patchwork of state court decisions addressing local commercial disputes. These local common law principles were first distilled in the Restatement of Torts and the Restatement of Unfair Competition and then codified in the Uniform Trade Secrets Act in 1979. Underscoring the local prerogative of trade secret law, state legislatures modified and tailored the Uniform Trade Secrets Act to reflect their state-specific concerns and needs. For many years, despite a push for national uniformity, a number of states chose not to adopt a statutory scheme at all (some still haven’t).

After losing a case on summary judgment, and at a time when Parallel Networks most needed its counsel to fight to overturn the catastrophic summary judgment ruling, Jenner & Block was instead having internal discussions on which course of action would allow Jenner & Block to recover the maximum amount, whether that was to continue or terminate the representation… After subsequently firing the client Jenner & Block interpreted the termination provisions in the representation agreement to give it the right to convert the representation agreement from a contingency fee agreement to an hourly fee agreement… Ultimately, new counsel would prevail on behalf of Parallel Networks on appeal… Jenner’s interpretation of the representation agreement seems to fly in the face of Jenner & Block’s ethical obligation to act as a fiduciary to its client, which requires Jenner & Block to place Parallel Network’s interests before its own. It is difficult to see how Jenner & Block’s interpretation of the representation agreement did anything other than place Jenner & Block’s interests ahead of its client’s interests… Adding insult to injury, the arbitration award for fees was more than the subsequently victorious law firm collected against the infringer on behalf of Parallel Networks, which makes it difficult to understand how the fee collected was not unreasonable as that term is used in ABA Model Rule 1.5, which prohibits attorneys from charging unreasonable fees.

The Court disagreed that the district court’s sole basis for finding exceptional circumstances was that NOVA filed an action in equity. The Court noted that the district court also relied on the substantive weakness of NOVA’s position, which can independently support an exceptional-case determination. It is the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position that can lead to an exceptional case determination not correctness or success of that position. For instance, NOVA’s allegations of fraud were supported exclusively by conflicting testimony, a fact going to the strength of the action.

Jenner & Block represented Parallel Networks for 18 months and then lost one of the cases on summary judgment of non-infringement. Four weeks after losing summary judgement, Jenner & Block decided the cases were no longer economically viable, refused to handle the appeal of the adverse summary judgment and advised Parallel Networks that it was terminating its representation in both cases. Parallel Networks retained new legal counsel for the appeal and these new lawyers undid Jenner & Block’s loss when the Federal Circuit vacated the summary judgement order of non-infringement and remanded the case back to Delaware. Parallel Networks eventually settled both cases, including an eight-figure settlement in one of those cases. Incredibly, more than two and a half years after Jenner & Block determined that these cases weren’t economically viable and then decided to abandon its client, Jenner & Block sent a demand letter to Parallel Networks claiming it was entitled to payment of $10.2 million in hourly fees based on the successful outcomes of the cases achieved by a different law firm.

The FTC laid out Qualcomm’s predatory licensing tactics in its complaint. Instead of treating all companies the same, Qualcomm refuses to license to other chip makers so that it has a virtual monopoly on CDMA chips. And instead of licensing on FRAND terms, Qualcomm forces its customers to buy licenses they don’t need and massively overcharges them for those licenses… No one denies Qualcomm’s place in telecommunications history, but Qualcomm has been paid many times over at this point. Enough is enough.

About 5,100 patent infringement cases were filed in the U.S. during 2016, according to the PwC litigation study. This represents a 9 percent drop in lawsuits from 2015’s totals and the third straight year of decline since 2013, when more than 6,000 patent suits were filed. As the PwC study notes, this decline stands in stark contrast to the 6 percent compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for patent case filings since 1991. It’s also the largest deviation between the rate of case filings and the rate of U.S. patent grants since that time.