Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
squingebob: It was neither. It was printed as an OPINION piece.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/21/opinion/china-trump-trade.html
MJPLIFE11: I like posters who make blanket statements without any support, so easy to refute. As detailed below, the FED started raising rates in Dec 2015.
Between2008 and 2015, the Fed kept the rate at zero. Recession ended in June 2009.
Fed Chair Janet Yellen (February 2014 - February 2018)
2015: GDP = 2.9%, Unemployment = 6%, Inflation = 0.7%
Dec 17 0.5% Growth stabilized so Fed began raising rates.
2016: GDP = 1.6%, Unemployment = 4.6%, Inflation = 2.1%
Dec 15 0.75% Fed maintained steady increase in rates.
2017: GDP = 2.2%, Unemployment = 4.1%, Inflation = 2.1%
Mar 16 1.0% Fed was steady on its path of normalizing its benchmark rate.
Jun 15 1.25% ^
Dec 14 1.5% ^
Fed Chair Jerome Powell (February 2018 - February 2022)
2018: GDP = 2.95, Unemployment = 3.9%, Inflation = 1.9%
Mar 22 1.75% Fed projects steady growth.
Jun 14 2.0% ^
Sep 27 2.25% ^
Dec 19 2.5% Fed stopped raising rates in 2019.
https://www.thebalance.com/fed-funds-rate-history-highs-lows-3306135
jjff: Your original statement was that "Obama never had 3% gdp growth in 8 years!". There was no supporting reference. It is only now that you are qualifying it to indicate that it referred to the annual report on Real GDP Growth. Since there are both quarterly and annual reports, as I pointed out over 3% growth was reported in the quarterly reports. Your general, unqualified statement was misleading.
MJPLIFE: if he is talking about the full year, the present aministration also did not achieve a 3% GDP rate for 2017 (2.47%) and 2018(2.97%).
Abig: So far the current administration is only 2 out of 9 quarterly rates which isn't too good considering the supposedly booming economy. When (if) the tariff program goes into full effect there probably will be a slowdown. Quarterly GDP can vary widely dependent on specific happenings during a quarter.
jjff: Your statement that "Obama never had 3% GDP growth in 8 years!" is factually incorrect. I assume the statement was made as an unfavorable comparison with the recently reported 3.2% rate for the 1st quarter 2019.
The Real GDP Growth rate is reported for both quarterly and annual periods. Even though the growth rate is reported quarterly, the BEA annualizes it.
During the Obama administration, the reported quarterly rates exceeded 3% for four reporting periods:
3rd qtr 2010 3.18%
3rd qtr 2014 3.04%
1st qtr 2015 3.81%
2nd qtr 2015 3.37%
https://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-quarter
I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for this to happen.
InterDigital expects to be able to license 5G tech to Huawei, despite U.S. ban
By Stephen Nellis
(Reuters) - InterDigital Wireless Inc said on Monday that it can license its 5G network technology to Huawei Technologies Co Ltd despite the threat of a U.S. ban on selling chips and software to the Chinese telecommunications firm, and patent attorneys said Qualcomm Inc likely also can do so.
InterDigital and Qualcomm are the two major American holders of patents for wireless networking technology, including the 5G networks rolling out this year in China. Last week, President Donald Trump issued an executive order restricting the ability of U.S. firms to sell technology to Huawei, though officials on Monday eased some of those restrictions for 90 days.
InterDigital, which generates revenue by developing wireless technologies and then licensing out the patents, said it believes it can continue its efforts to strike a 5G deal with Huawei because export control laws do not cover patents, which are public records and therefore not confidential technology.
"The addition of Huawei to the Entity List does not prevent InterDigital from entering into a patent license agreement with Huawei, because our patents cover technologies that are publicly available and therefore outside the scope of U.S. export control laws," InterDigital spokesman Patrick Van de Wille told Reuters in a statement.
Qualcomm did not respond to a request for comment. But trade attorneys said the situation is likely the same for the San Diego-based company. Qualcomm also sells chips to Huawei, but only for Huawei's lower-priced handset. It generates most of its profits from patent licenses.
"If you’re giving Huawei rights to your patents, all that means in effect is that you’re not going to sue them," said Erick Robinson, a partner with Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig who formerly worked as a patent attorney for Qualcomm in China. "You're not passing on any information whatsoever."
Huawei, the world's third-largest smartphone provider and also a major provider of telecommunications gear, is a big customer for both InterDigital and Qualcomm. The Chinese tech firm accounted for 14% of InterDigital's $533 million in revenue in 2017, the most recent year for which figures are available.
Both American companies are in the middle of license disputes with Huawei over 5G technology. Huawei sued InterDigital in China in January, alleging the Wilmington, Delaware-based company was seeking to charge too much for its patents, a claim InterDigital disputes.
Qualcomm has had a patent deal with Huawei since 2014, but Huawei stopped paying in 2017. Qualcomm expects to get $450 million in "good faith" payments this year as the two sides negotiate.
(Reporting by Stephen Nellis; Editing by Greg Mitchell and Leslie Adler)
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/interdigital-expects-able-license-5g-013445934.html
jjff: Your friend paying $0.31 an hour in China 3 years ago (i.e. 2016), must have been running a real low class sweat shop.
"According to Euromonitor, Chinese hourly wage hit USD3.6 in 2016.
Chinese factory workers are now getting paid more than ever: Average hourly wages hit $3.60 last year, spiking 64 percent from 2011, according to market research firm Euromonitor. That's more than five times hourly manufacturing wages in India, and is more on par with countries such as Portugal and South Africa.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-hourly-rate-for-a-factory-worker-in-China
jjff: There is always two sides to a story. The claim that China reneged is just one side's claim of what happened. According to this article, China is claiming that it was "Washington that repeatedly tried to change the terms of the negotiations midway through the talks."
China hits back at US claim it reneged on trade talks
Beijing says Washington changed terms on deal to buy more goods midway through discussions
China accused Washington of trying to force Beijing to suddenly increase the volume of goods it was willing to buy from the US © Reuters
China has struck back at US accusations that it reneged on trade commitments, saying it was Washington that repeatedly tried to change the terms of the negotiations midway through the talks.
In its first detailed explanation of the failure of the discussions, China’s foreign ministry on Tuesday accused Washington of trying to force Beijing to suddenly increase the volume of goods it was willing to buy from the US as part of an agreement, violating terms struck in December.
The US “arbitrarily raised its asking price”, said a spokesman for the foreign ministry. “The hat that?.?.?.?violates promises is absolutely not on the Chinese head.”
(continued)
https://www.ft.com/content/b44e36dc-75ed-11e9-bbad-7c18c0ea0201
jjff: I would add "or what politicians say"
An aside:
Talking Heads were an American rock band formed in 1975 in New York City and active until 1991. The band comprised David Byrne, Chris Frantz, Tina Weymouth, and Jerry Harrison. Wikipedia
my3sons: From an article discussing the proposed ban;
"New procurement rules will apply tighter cybersecurity standards to contractors in an effort to close vulnerabilities in that part of the government’s acquisition process. Regulators are working on a rule to ban Huawei and ZTE products from government networks; a similar rule targeting the Russian cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Lab took effect in July. And a House panel is considering how best to prevent vulnerable telecom equipment from reaching rural communities, some of which host U.S. military bases."
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/15/trump-ban-huawei-us-1042046
Jim: Not just me. IHUB Mod Squad and Admin are also actively monitoring and deleting.
jjff: If you keep making obvious political statements, they will also be deleted.
From the IHUB Handbook:
Off Topic
Posts about or focusing on other Members or groups of people and their reasons for posting on the board (i.e. "XYZDownDaDrain" is just a basher, ignore him", "XYZToDaMoon" is a pumper", "the naysayers are very loud today", "c'mon, where did all the cheerleaders go?"). The post does not have to be addressed to a specific person. If the post is about other Users then it should be removed.
Posts with religious or political statements should be removed as "off topic". These inevitably create an avalanche of replies that are off topic as well.
Posts about Moderators and/or deletions are also "off topic". Issues of this nature need to be discussed with a Site Admin.
Putting "ot" at the beginning of a post does not make it acceptable. It is still off topic and eligible for removal.
jjff: I don't know how you can come to the conclusion that "BOTTOM LINE WE HAVE BEEN DOING GREAT ALL OVER THE WORLD WITH OUR TRADING PARTNERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
According to the following article, last year the overall US trade deficit in goods and services was $621 billion, which was a 10.6% increase over the $552 deficit in 2017. China only accounted for 47% of the total U.S. deficit in goods. As I previously noted, the US is only doing good in services, with a net suplus of $270 million.
US Trade Deficit and How It Hurts the Economy
In 2018, the U.S. trade deficit was $621 billion according to the U.S. Census. It imported $3.1 trillion of goods and services while exporting $2.5 trillion. The deficit is higher than in 2017 when it was $552 billion. That's despite the trade war initiated by President Donald Trump. One reason is that the dollar strengthened between 2014 and 2016, according to the U.S. dollar index. It weakened a bit in 2017 but strengthened again in 2018. A strong dollar makes imports cheaper and exports more expensive.
But the deficit is less than the record $762 billion in 2006. The decrease since then means U.S. exports grew faster than imports. That's good for U.S. businesses and job growth.
Trump's protectionist measures include a 25% tariff on steel imports and a 10% tariff on aluminum. China, the European Union, Mexico, and Canada have announced retaliatory tariffs, hurting U.S. exports. The tariffs depressed the stock market. Analysts worry that Trump has started a trade war that will hurt international trade.
Consumer Products and Autos Drive the Trade Deficit
Consumer products and automobiles are the primary drivers of the trade deficit. In 2018, the United States imported $648 billion in drugs, televisions, clothing, and other household items. It only exported $206 billion of these consumer goods. The imbalance added $442 billion to the deficit. America imported $372 billion worth of automobiles and parts, while only exporting $159 billion. That added $214 billion to the deficit.
Petroleum Imports Are Falling
In 2018, the United States imported $215 billion in petroleum products. That includes crude oil, natural gas, fuel oil, and other petroleum-based distillates such as kerosene. That was a lot lower than the record $313 billion imported in 2012. New U.S. shale oil fields have been developed to the point where there is now an oversupply.
U.S. petroleum exports were only $153 billion. As a result, petroleum trade contributed $62 billion to the trade deficit.
America Is a Net Exporter of Services
The United States exported more services than it imported. It exported $828 billion in services while importing only $558 billion. That created a trade surplus of $270 billion. It means U.S. services are very competitive in the global market. The surplus helps offset the deficit in goods.
Here's how much each category contributed to the trade surplus in services:
Intellectual property, as measured by royalties and license fees -- $79 billion.
Travel-related services and transport -- $54 billion.
Computers and other business services -- $55 billion.
Financial and insurance services -- $63 billion.
The Primary Trading Partners
The primary 2018 U.S. trading partners are China, with a total trade of $670 billion; Canada, with $617 billion; and Mexico, with $611 billion. The trade deficit with China is $419 billion. It's responsible for 47% of the total U.S. deficit in goods. The other U.S. trading partners don't create as much of a deficit.
How the Dollar's Value Affects the Trade Deficit
https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-trade-deficit-causes-effects-trade-partners-3306276
loophole: My comment was in regard to the overall issue of trade deficits, not the associated issue of intellectual property theft.
jjff: Throwing out an amount of $5 trillion, without giving further details, is a nice scare propaganda tactic. However, when you see that the amount covers a 34 year period, it doesn’t sound as bad. In addition, the number only covers the goods trade deficit, while the goods trade deficit is the major component of the overall trade deficit with China, the US has been running a services trade surplus with China. From a US Trade Representative summary report on 2018 trade with China:
“Trade Balance
The U.S. goods trade deficit with China was $419.2 billion in 2018, a 11.6% increase ($43.6 billion) over 2017.
The United States has a services trade surplus of an estimated $41 billion with China in 2018, up 0.8% from 2017."
As to whether a trade deficit is really bad, there are many factors to consider and I think you will find that many economists do not agree with that conclusion.
jjff: Over how long a period, and what is the source of your statement that "The fact of the matter is that in totality China has over a $5 TRILLION surplus with the USA"?
my3sons: Nothing new on the ZTE case. Still waiting to set a hearing date at CAFC.
vegas options: according to the 10-Q, there were 31,723,827 common shares Outstanding at April 29, 2019, Not "appox. 30.6M."
Also, don’t forget going private is one of the terms that would affect the redemption/conversion of the outstanding Note issue. The following is one example in the 10-Q, showing how the number of outstanding shares could be effected, depending on share price
“Certain shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise or conversion of certain securities have been excluded from our computation of EPS because the strike price or conversion rate, as applicable, of such securities was greater than the average market price of our common stock and, as a result, the effect of such exercise or conversion would have been anti-dilutive.
Set forth below are the securities and the weighted average number of shares of common stock underlying such securities that were excluded from our computation of EPS for the periods presented (in thousands). For the three months ended March 31, 2019, the effects of all potentially dilutive securities were excluded from the computation of diluted EPS as a result of the net loss reported in the period.
Three months ended March 31, 2019
Restricted stock units and stock options 402
Convertible securities …………………. 4,440
Warrants ………………………………… 4,440
Total………………………………………..9,282
As I previously posted it looks like the $5.5 million charge was due to the ASUS litigation settlement. From the 10-K:
"On April 9, 2019, the parties participated in another court-mandated settlement conference. On April 12, 2019, certain subsidiaries of InterDigital entered into a Settlement Agreement and First Amendment to the Patent License Agreement with Asus (the “Asus Settlement Agreement”), pursuant to which, among other things, the parties agreed to a multi-year amendment to the 2008 Asus PLA that added coverage for 4G technologies and amended certain other terms. The parties also agreed to dismiss all outstanding litigation and other proceedings among the parties, including, without limitation, the action in the CA Northern District Court described herein. The results of the settlement are reflected in our condensed consolidated financial statements for the three months ended March 31, 2019. The terms and conditions of the Asus Settlement Agreement are confidential. The action in the CA Northern District Court was dismissed on April 15, 2019, and there are no further proceedings in this matter."
"first quarter 2019 results include a $5.5 million net charge as contra non-recurring revenue related to a recently restructured licensing arrangement with a long-term customer."
mister: As usual IDCC provides very little information. I wonder whether the adjustment is related to the settlement of the ASUS claim which was based on the PLA signed in 2008, and is one of the remaining old per unit licenses.
Jim: Don't know why GAMCO has stopped reporting patents; but, IDCC has been receiving patents issued this year.
The USPTO issues an "Official Gazette for Patents" which is a weekly listing of patents issued.
"The Official Gazette for Patents is published each Tuesday in electronic form only, and contains bibliographic text and a representative drawing from each patent issued that week. Please note that the Official Gazette Notices are also included in each issue."
https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/official-gazette/official-gazette-patents
On a quick look, I don't know how GAMCO came up with his listings as the Gazette format is a little confusing. The following is one of the IDCC patents in the latest weekly listing:
United States Patent 10,271,318
Terry , et al. April 23, 2019
Method and apparatus for providing and utilizing a non-contention based channel in a wireless communication system
Abstract
In a wireless communication system comprising at least one evolved Node-B (eNB) and a plurality of wireless transmit/receive units (WTRUs), a non-contention based (NCB) channel is established, maintained, and utilized. The NCB channel is allocated for use by one or more WTRUs in the system for utilization in a variety of functions, and the allocation is communicated to the WTRUs. The wireless communication system analyzes the allocation of the NCB channel as required, and the NCB channel is reallocated as required.
Inventors: Terry; Stephen E. (Northport, NY), Wang; Jin (Princeton, NJ), Chandra; Arty (Roslyn, NY), Chen; John S. (Ann Arbor Township, MI), Zhang; Guodong (Syosset, NY)
Applicant:
Name City State Country Type
INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
Wilmington
DE
US
Assignee: InterDigital Technology Corporation (Wilmington, DE)
http://patentsgazette.uspto.gov/week17/OG/patentee_Utility.html
(enter name: Interdigital)
It was interesting that many of the listed patents assigned to IDCC appear to be related to the Technicolor acquisition
my3sons: ASUS already has a license with IDCC and apparently has been paying royalties under the contract (see below from 10-K). ASUS basically wanted to void the contract and recover what they claimed were excessive non-FRAND royalties.
"On April 17, 2018, the parties served opening expert reports in the CA Northern District Court proceeding. Asus’s damages expert contends that Asus is currently owed damages in the amount of $75.9 million based on its claims that InterDigital charged royalties inconsistent with its FRAND commitments. Those damages, which represent a substantial portion of the royalties paid by Asus through third quarter 2017, do not reflect Asus’s most recent royalty payments. Asus also seeks interest, costs and attorneys’ fees, as well as, in connection with its Sherman Act claim, treble damages."
ON April 12 the Judge in the ASUS case against IDCC in the Northern District of California issued an order that the parties agreed to dismiss the case, with prejudice. Each party to pay their own fees and costs.
As I previously posted, I didn't understand why ASUS was still fighting.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147317258&txt2find=ASUS
redviking: Apparently the writer did not consider Interdigital significant enough to be included in the list of licensors
"Licensor companies include BlackBerry, China Mobile, Fujitsu, Nokia, Qualcomm, Siemens, Sony and ZTE, as well as Ericsson, which developed the idea for the platform in the first place."
my3sons: Nothing new, not yet scheduled for oral argument.
jjff: Try this>
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1405495/000140549519000011/roth0319final020.jpg
or this for entire presentation:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1405495/000140549519000011/roth0319final.htm
my3sons: CAFC still hasn't set an oral argument date, so it will be sometime before a decision comes out.
Paullee: My comments on ASUS
As a non lawyer I don’t know why the case has not been finalized since almost all of ASUS’s claims have been dismissed and the remaining Sherman act claim is questionable .
ASUS’s original filing contained a long list of assorted complaints. Since then as a result of arbitration rulings and the Judge’s decisions against ASUS, the main complaint remaining to be acted upon is a violation of the Sherman Act. Since cases that involve anti trust violations are complicated and are based on a lot of theoretical evidence, ASUS’s lawyers must hope that they will be able to convince a lay jury that IDCC did some thing wrong.
The following comment from the recent 10-K, is the most recent example of ASUS claims being rejected:
“On December 20, 2018, the CA Northern District Court issued an order on the parties’ motions for summary judgment. InterDigital’s motion was granted in part and denied in part, and Asus’s motion was denied in its entirety. The court: (1) granted summary judgment that Asus is judicially estopped from arguing that the 2008 Asus PLA is not FRAND compliant in light of Asus’s prior inconsistent positions; (2) denied to the extent ruled on by the court InterDigital’s motion that issue preclusion prevents Asus from re-litigating issues decided in the arbitration; (3) granted summary judgment that Asus cannot invalidate the 2008 Asus PLA on the theory that, even if FRAND when signed, the 2008 Asus PLA became non-FRAND thereafter; (4) denied InterDigital’s motion for summary judgment that Asus’s Sherman Act claim fails as a matter of law; and (5) granted summary judgment that Asus’s promissory estoppel and California UCL claims fail as a matter of law. In addition, the court denied Asus’s motion for summary judgment that, as a matter of law, InterDigital breached its contractual obligation to license its essential patents on FRAND terms and conditions by engaging in discriminatory licensing practices.”
In regard to the Sherman Act and FRAND, last September, the head of the DOJ Antitrust Division issued the following policy statement:
“A unilateral violation of a FRAND commitment should not give rise to a cause of action under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, even if a patent holder is alleged to have misled or deceived a standard-setting organization with respect to its licensing intentions," Delrahim said. "Applying Section 2 to this sort of unilateral conduct would contravene the underlying policies of the antitrust laws.”
https://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2018/september/us-antitrust-law-wrong-tool-frand-breaches-/
As I previously posted, in implementing this policy in U-Blox’s case against IDCC. the DOJ filed with the Court a Statement of Interest against their Sherman Act complaint.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=146062213
Jim/Paulee: Sorry I didn't respond to your e-mail. With all the junk mail I get, unless I am expecting a message, I only check my account occasionally.
As you posted,I probably am considered elderly, hitting 90 last year. Thankfully, except for some physical slowing down, I would say I am in pretty good condition, with no major health/mental related problems.
I have been reducing my position in IDCC; which I acquired in the $20's, so I can't complain; but still hold some.
In regard to posting, I still read the board everyday. Except for the fluff type announcements that IDCC keeps putting out, there is very little financial or legal information given out, so nothing to analyze or comment on. I never was one to comment on stock market action.
bim: I was not referring to the Huawei/Interdigital case being made public, but to the effective rates in the Apple and Samsung licenses. All that was made public about the rates was the following general comment in IDCC's 10-K.
"InterDigital believes that the decisions are seriously flawed both legally and factually. For instance, in determining a purported FRAND rate, the Chinese courts applied an incorrect economic analysis by evaluating InterDigital’s lump-sum patent license agreement with Apple in hindsight to posit a running royalty rate."
From the decision. The case referred to is the Huawei/Interdigital Chinese court case. I don't remember seeing these rates being made public before.
"159. In that case, other InterDigital licences were unpacked to derive effective rates, with the unpacked effective rates for Apple being much lower than were on offer to Huawei. The court regarded the Apple licence as the primary reference, having been voluntarily negotiated and agreed by the parties (see page 72). The unpacked effective rate derived for Apple was 0.0187%, for Samsung 0.19%, but the court adopted the rate of 0.019% (marginally greater than the unpacked effective rate paid by Apple) as the appropriate rate."
my3sons: Apparently the new standard only applies to new cases at the USPTO, not to prior decisions that may be under appeal.
The following is from a recent (January 10) CAFC precedential decision:
"Those claim construction principles are important even in an inter partes review proceeding like this one, in which the claims were properly given the “broadest reasonable interpretation” consistent with the specification.(4)"
"(4)This standard has recently changed. For petitions
filed on or after November 13, 2018, the Board will apply
the Phillips claim construction standard. See Changes to
the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims
in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board, 83 Fed.Reg. 51340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (to be codified
at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42)."
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1154.Opinion.1-10-2019.pdf
sab: Thanks for that clarification. For more on the adoption of the Phillips standard by the USPTO;
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/10/10/uspto-publishes-final-rule-phillips-standard-ptab/id=102210/
my3sons: An interesting article explaining how the PTAB and District Courts can come up with differing opinions regarding patent validity.
https://www.ptablitigationblog.com/fed-circ-affirms-conflicting-invalidity-determinations-district-court-ptab/
my3sons: Briefs have been filed. Scheduling an oral hearing date.
01/10/2019 53 Notice to Advise of Scheduling Conflicts. Arguing counsel must advise of, and show good cause for, any scheduling conflicts during the upcoming court session months listed in the attached notice. The notice of conflict with oral argument is due on or before 01/17/2019. The Response to Notice to Advise of Scheduling Conflicts can be found here. The Oral Argument Guide can be found here. [577414] [MMA] [Entered: 01/10/2019 04:34 PM]
my3sons: I don't know what you mean by "their IDCC litigation against IDCC." I read the filing as the DOJ being against one particular claim in U-Blox's filing.
An interesting filing by the US DOJ in the U-Blox case:
NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The United States respectfully submits this notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §517, which permits the Attorney General to direct any officer of the Department of Justice to attend to the interests of the United States in any case pending in a federal court.
The United States enforces the federal antitrust laws and has a strong interest in ensuring that allegations of antitrust violations are adjudicated so as to preserve, and not distort, competition in the market.The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice intends to file a Statement of
Interest of the United States in this case to explain its view that Plaintiffs’ Fourth Cause of Action, “antitrust monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act,” does not properly sound in antitrust law and that injunctive relief granted on that basis would risk distorting licensing negotiations for standard essential patents. Plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) brings the viability of its monopolization claims squarely before the Court at this initial stage of litigation. The Antitrust Division believes the Court would benefit from receiving a Statement of Interest of the United States prior to
ruling on the TRO application.
The United States would ordinarily file its Statement of Interest in accordance with the briefing schedule set by the Court—in this instance, by January 25, 2019, in advance of the TRO hearing. Due to a lapse in funding that took effect at the Antitrust Division at
midnight on January 4, 2019, however, the Division is prohibited by the Anti-deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. §1341, from working at this time on such a Statement of Interest. If the TRO hearing cannot reasonably be delayed until after Department of Justice appropriations have been restored, then the United States would be unable to submit its views in advance of the hearing, unless the Court issues an order requesting the United States do so.
An interesting read relative to Huawei's action and rate setting:
Chinese Court Releases Guidelines for SEP-related Disputes
China May 23 2018
The High People’s Court of Guangdong issued guidelines for hearing standard essential patent (SEP) disputes (the SEP Guidelines—available here in Chinese) on April 26, 2018. The High People’s Court of Guangdong is one of China’s most important forums for IP disputes and acts as the appellate court of the IP tribunal of Shenzhen, home to China’s most successful technology companies. The SEP Guidelines are primarily concerned with SEP disputes in the telecommunications sector but are also of relevance for SEP disputes in other sectors of the economy.
(continued)
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d7e3d949-cd6e-49a7-a99b-f2e797fdcf06
my3sons: Although standards may apply worldwide, there is no single worldwide patent. Each country issues their own patents. However, there is a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) which assists applicants in seeking patent protection internationally for their inventions.
The PCT is administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) which has 152 contracting states(i.e. countries). By filing one international patent application under the PCT, applicants can simultaneously seek protection for an invention in a very large number of countries.
https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/