The Spherix v Cisco fiasco
It all started In the Charter v Rockstar case. Charter accused Rockstar of unethical practices involving Standard Essential Patents ( SEPs.) Then 2 of those patents were transferred to Spherix who never asserted those patents against anyone. Charter filed a counterclaim against Spherix to have it joined to that case. I believe the problem with the SEPs is that they were licensed free, or for very little royalty rate by Nortel and when Rockstar demanded a fair royalty rate they were accused of violating their RAND commitments. Perhaps this is why the IEEE has made its revision changes to make it easier for the court to determine what is a rate. Spherix has never asserted SEPs against anyone they were smart enough to let this all play out. That is why Judge Robinson could not have them Joined to the Bockstar case. What had happened to Spherix is that Cisco and its customers want those low and free royalty rate and are trying to get Spherix to enter into negotiations it doesn't want to have. Just because they own the patents doesn't necessarily mean that they HAVE to assert them, but if they DO they have to follow IEEE guidelines.The Court is trying to get involved and Spherix didn't want to cooperate perhaps until after the IEEE finished with its revisions.
Cisco filed a motion to have Spherix joined to the Bockstar case, a motion to which the court never responded. All parties settled their differences in the Bockstar case with the exception of Spherix and Cisco. The Court requested that any pending motions pending should be brought to the attention of the court. Spherix wrote a letter to the court that a pending motion to be dealt with is Cisco's motion to have Spherix joined. It appears for reasons unknown that the court not only ignored the motion but also Spherix letter. Now Cisco has dismissed its counterclaims against Spherix in the Bockstar case and is now asking the court to have those 2 SEPs joined to yet another case, the Spherix v Cisco case that was stalled for six months apparently because of Cisco's original attempt to have Spherix joined in the Bockstar case. Spherix has not responded to any of Cisco
motions because technically they haven't had to because the Judge never ruled on Cisco motion to have Spherix joined to any case. In the mean time the IEEE is revising its bylaws concerning fair royalty rates and injunctive relief. Just because Spherix bought those SEP patents doesn't mean that it has to assert them on anyone if it so choses and certainly not in such a cloud of uncertainty propagated by the court and the IEEE. The next move has to be by Judge Robinson if she was unable to join Spherix to the Bockstar case then how can she join the SEPs to Spherix v Cisco case. AJMO and worth what you paid for it.
