IPWatchdog.com is in the process of transitioning to a newer version of our website. Please be patient with us while we work out all the kinks.

Posts Tagged: "settlement"

AT&T Settlement Agreement Admissible in Sprint Patent Litigation

The Federal Circuit found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the AT&T settlement agreement for several reasons. First, the agreement covered the same patented technology at issue and thus was a reliable estimate of the technology’s value to Prism and potential infringers. Second, though both litigations were commenced the same day, the agreement came from an “earlier” case because it was entered into after all discovery was complete and on a fully developed record. This increased the likelihood that the settlement reflected the value of the patented technology rather than a desire to avoid a potential unfavorable judgment. Finally, the settlement was reached after a large share of litigation costs had already been expended, again reducing the role of litigation cost-avoidance in the decision to settle.

Why should litigation costs of the infringer be relevant to determine if a license is fair or just a nuisance?

Why should the costs of the tortfeasing infringer be relevant in determining whether the extracted value from a settlement is fair? The fact that law firms charge a lot of money to defend patent infringement cases, and don’t particularly have any incentive to settle cases early, somehow translates into certain settlements being for nuisance value without any consideration of whether the settlement is a fair value for the rights trampled upon by the infringer? The FTC has quite a lot of explaining to do, because it seems they picked an arbitrary number that is a function of what attorneys ordinarily charge infringing defendants through discovery. I don’t see how that is a function of the value of the innovation, or how it says anything about the merits of the infringement case, the damages case, or the tactics of the patent owner. In fact, it seems as if the $300,000 figure is completely irrelevant.

MONKEYmedia patent suit against movie studio defendants continues after settlements with Apple, Sony

The suit filed by MONKEYmedia identified Apple software products as allegedly infringing upon the patents-in-suit… Six years of litigation later and on September 6th, 2016, an order of dismissal was filed in W.D. Tex. indicating that both parties had settled their respective claims for relief filed in the case. A joint stipulation of dismissal filed on September 2nd stated that both parties had stipulated to the dismissal of all claims and counter-claims asserted against each other. This comes about a year after MONKEYmedia had settled similar patent infringement claims against Sony Corporation (NYSE:SNE), developer of the Blu-ray digital content standard which takes advantage of seamless expansion technologies covered by MONKEYmedia’s patents. “We’re pleased that the litigation has been resolved with each of Apple and Sony,” said Eric Gould Bear, co-founder of MONKEYmedia and a renowned designer of user interface and interaction technologies. “They each make great products, and I believe synergistic relationships are better business than sitting on opposite sides of the court.”

Reverse Payment Settlements and Holdup Under PTAB

One reason the PTAB is convenient for reaching reverse payment deals is that there is no direct antitrust oversight, since its judges are administrators with very narrow legal authority. Further, while there is a statute requiring agreements between Hatch-Waxman firms to be submitted to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for antitrust review, the parties may attempt to evade it. The statute requires submission of agreements that relate to the manufacture or sale of either firm’s drug. The parties might therefore feel justified (rightly or wrongly) in not submitting a consent decree stating that the patent is valid and would be infringed by the proposed generic, since this does not expressly address manufacture or sales. Alternatively, it could be that the parties submit a district court consent decree (which includes no reverse payment), but not the PTAB settlement (which could include a reverse payment). After all, a PTAB settlement simply says that the parties agree to terminate the IPR – it need not declare the patent valid – and this arguably does not relate to manufacture or sales.

FTC Report on Drug Patent Settlements Shows Substantial Decrease in Pay-for-Delay Deals

The number of these potentially anticompetitive deals has fallen significantly following the Supreme Court’s landmark antitrust decision in FTC v. Actavis in 2013. The total number of such deals filed with the FTC has dropped to 21 in FY 2014 from 29 in FY 2013, and 40 in FY 2012 prior to the Actavis ruling. The FTC staff report for FY 2014 represents the first annual snapshot of such deals following the Actavis decision.

Understanding Court, PTAB Interplay Key in Today’s Patent Litigation Environment

The PTAB has seen more than triple the number of inter partes review (IPR) petitions—now the preferred way for a company accused of infringement in court to challenge a patent’s validity—than it projected when the challenge first became available in 2012. But the fact that proceedings can run simultaneously presents challenges.

General Patent Settles Patent Litigation with Realtors

General Patent Corporation (GPC), a patent licensing and enforcement firm, announced on July 11, 2013 that its subsidiary, Data Distribution Technologies LLC (DDT) settled a patent infringement lawsuit against RE/MAX LLC. This settlement resolves Data Distribution Technologies LLC v. RE/MAX LLC (Case No. 2:12-cv-04877), which was filed on August 3, 2012, in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Similarly, GPC announced on July 3, 2013, that it resolved a similar lawsuit against Weichert Lead Network, resolving Data Distribution Technologies LLC v. Weichert Lead Network, Inc. (2:12-cv-04149), which was filed on July 6, 2012, also in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Largest Patent Settlement Scores $2.15 Billion for Pfizer, Takeda

The settlement comes after a nearly 10-year legal battle in which Pfizer and Nycomed (now part of Takeda) sought to enforce the patent for its blockbuster acid reflux medicine. Pfizer subsidiary Wyeth and Takeda will divide the proceeds of the settlement with Pfizer receiving $1.376 billion and Takeda receiving $774 million. Collectively, this $2.15 billion patent infringement settlement is the largest patent settlement in history, dwarfing the $1.7 settlement achieved by Johnson & Johnson in 2010 and the $1.35 billion settlement achieved by hall-of-fame inventor Dr. Gary Michelson against Medtronic in 2005.

Patent Deals, Licenses and Settlements – December 2012

Without doubt, the biggest patent deal of the month related to Kodak’s sale of its non-core patent portfolio to Intellectual Ventures, RPX and others for $525 million. But there were other interesting patent business deals, including: (1) Microsoft and EINS Sign Android Patent Agreement; (2) NIH Awards Contract for Improved Anthrax Vaccine; (3) ARRIS To Acquire Motorola Home Business For $2.35 Billion; (4) Mylan Announces Comtan® Settlement Agreement; (5) Trovagene Licenses Duke University, Novartis; (6) Amgen Finalizes Agreement Resolving Federal Investigations; (7) GE Healthcare, CDI Agree to Sublicense for Cellular Assay Patents; and more.

FTC Stops “History Sniffing” by Online Advertising Network

An online advertising company agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it used “history sniffing” to secretly and illegally gather data from millions of consumers about their interest in sensitive medical and financial issues ranging from fertility and incontinence to debt relief and personal bankruptcy. The FTC settlement order bars the company, Epic Marketplace Inc., from continuing to use history sniffing technology, which allows online operators to “sniff” a browser to see what sites consumers have visited in the past.

Patent Business: Deals, Licenses, Settlements – Dec. 4, 2012

On November 28, 2012, Forest Laboratories, Inc. (NYSE: FRX) and Forest Laboratories Holdings, Ltd. (collectively,“Forest”) announced that they entered into settlement agreements with Alkem Laboratories, Ltd. (“Alkem”), Indchemie Health Specialties Pvt. Ltd. (“Indchemie”), and Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Torrent Pharma Inc. (collectively, “Torrent”) in patent infringement litigation brought by Forest in response to abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) filed by Alkem, Indchemie and Torrent each seeking approval to market generic versions of Forest’s BYSTOLIC® (nebivolol) tablets.

The Beginning of the End for the Smart Phone Patent Wars?

First, remember that Steve Jobs once referred to the smartphone patent wars as the patent equivalent of global thermonuclear war. But will this be more like the Cold War or the Apocalypse? The only patent war that I can recall that actually approximated a patent version of the Apocalypse was the battle between Polaroid and Kodak. That saw a $909 million verdict in 1990, and ultimately settled for $925 million about a year later, but required total aggregate attorneys fees in the neighborhood of $550 million. The war lasted 15 years and didn’t achieve the $2.5 to $5 billion that once upon a time was believed possible. This was also at a time when these numbers were real money.

Under FTC Settlement, Bosch Agrees to Make Certain Patents Available to Competitors

According to the FTC’s complaint, Bosch’s acquisition of SPX’s Service Solutions business would give Bosch monopoly power in the U.S. market for ACRRR devices. Following the transaction as proposed, Bosch would control an overwhelming share of the market. Four other firms are in the market, each with a very small share. The acquisition also would eliminate the current direct competition between Bosch’s RTI and Bosch brands and SPX’s Robinair brand, and would allow the combined firm to raise prices by unilaterally exercising its newly gained market power, in violation of the FTC Act, the FTC alleged. The FTC complaint also alleges that SPX has been pursuing a strategy of suing to enjoin competitors from using patents that may be necessary to meet the standards for manufacturing ACRRR devices.

Patent Litigation Settlement Roundup – Nov. 16, 2012

Acacia announced that the Company’s Board of Directors has authorized a program for repurchasing shares of the Company’s outstanding common stock. The stock repurchase program will be put into effect immediately. Under the stock repurchase program, the Company is authorized to purchase in the aggregate up to $100 million of its common stock through the period ending May 15, 2013. Meanwhile, HTC settles with Apple and more.

Patent Litigation Settlement Roundup

On November 8, 2012, Mylan Inc. (Nasdaq: MYL) announced that it, along with Famy Care Ltd., has entered into a settlement agreement with Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. that will resolve patent litigation related to Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo® Tablets, which are indicated for the prevention of pregnancy in women who elect to use oral contraceptives as a method of contraception. Also on November 8, Research Affiliates, LLC and WisdomTree Investments, Inc. (NASDAQ: WETF) announced that Research Affiliates will withdraw its patent infringement lawsuit brought against WisdomTree and pay WisdomTree $700,000. On October 31, 2012, Acacia Research Corporation (Nasdaq:ACTG) announced that its subsidiaries settled patent litigation with Medtronic and Comcast Cable in unrelated cases.