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.
Florian Mueller is a software activist who probably knows diddly squat about how the German courts operate. I doubt Apple, Inc does any business in Germany - it will have a local subsidiary responsible for selling there. For tactical reasons, Apple will have chosen not to defend this action in the first instance and hence the courts have issued a default judgement. What would be of more interest is how a probable parallel case against Apple GmbH is progressing.
The first reference is the English High Court decision which held one of IDCC's patents considered to be UMTS essential:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2007/3077.html
So when I made one of my rare posts to suggest that the conversion was due to a licensee's sales decreasing, I got flamed. Too bad.
The only reason for a licensee to convert from a fixed fee licence to a per unit licence is if their sales are decreasing. As the guidance said, this will lead to a $2M hit.
I think Mickeybritt may have had Gamco's post #272679 in mind:
"Additionally, the ITC has rejected the portion of the judge's ruling that had originally found the patents valid"
I read that as being a finding of invalidity but other posts cleared this up.
And if SAM do not agree that there is infringement, under their twisted FRAND contract logic they are saying that they do not have a license because the patent is non-essential.
The math seems to be wrong in this article - if 188 containers each containing 40,000 units have been imported, that's 7.5 million! Can only hope they've gotten their numbers right.
Pre-trial review on Monday:
COURT 18
Before MR JUSTICE FLOYD
Monday, 18 February 2008
At half past 11
Unrobed
PRE TRIAL REVIEW
IHC 95/08 Interdigital Technology Corporation v Nokia Corporation & anr
For your information, Lord Justice Pumphrey passed away on December 24:
The IPKat learned this morning that Sir Nicholas Pumfrey, recently elevated from the Patents Court for England and Wales to become a Lord Justice of Appeal, passed away on Christmas Eve following a stroke. The Kat, in common with many, many other people, greatly enjoyed his company and valued his opinions. Whether he was discussing principles of IP law, reminiscing about his own professional experiences, encouraging those following in his footsteps, or discussing the pleasures of the pedalo, his warm and friendly personality shone through.
Only nine days ago Sir Nicholas gave a highly-publicised ruling in Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd (noted here on the IPKat), upholding the conviction of a publican for an offence under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 when she sought to obtain the transmission of live football matches from Greece, but agreeing to refer questions arising from competition law to the European Court of Justices.
On behalf of all the readers of this weblog, the IPKat sends sincere condolences to his family and prays that they will be spared all further sorrow.
http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2007/12/sir-nicholas-pumfrey-1951-2007.html
The decision can be made available to the parties in advance but must be kept confidential:
AVAILABILITY OF RESERVED JUDGMENTS BEFORE HANDING DOWN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.1 Where judgment is to be reserved the Judge (or Presiding Judge) may, at the conclusion of the hearing, invite the views of the parties' legal representatives as to the arrangements to be made for the handing down of the judgment.
2.2 Unless the Court directs otherwise, the following provisions of this paragraph apply where the Judge or Presiding Judge is satisfied that the judgment will attract no special degree of confidentiality or sensitivity.
2.3 The Court will provide a copy of the draft judgment to the parties' legal representatives by 4 p.m. on the second working day before handing down, or at such other time as the Court may direct.
2.4 A copy of the draft judgment may be shown, in confidence, to the parties provided that:
(a) neither the judgment nor its substance is disclosed to any other person or used in the public domain; and
(b) no action is taken (other than internally) in response to the judgment, before the judgment is handed down.
2.5 Any breach of the obligation of confidentiality prescribed by paragraph 2.4 may be treated as contempt of court.
2.6 The case will be listed for judgment, and the judgment handed down at the appropriate time.
http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/practice_directions/pd_part40e.htm#6219893
Decision to be given in London tomorrow:
COURT 18
Before LORD JUSTICE PUMFREY
(Sitting as an Additional Judge of the Chancery Division)
Friday, 21 December 2007
At 10 o'clock
Robed
TRIAL LIST
FOR JUDGMENT
TLC 593/06 Nokia Corporation v Interdigital Technology Corporation
Mschere - how does the agreement define "Developed Patents"? There seems to be a distinction between these and "technically necessary TDD patents" which are licensed only for TDD applications.
NOK are probably arguing that the '579 patent is covered under the TDD paid up license. They know it isn't but they are hoping that they can make enough noise for the question to be considered under the arbitration clause. Once it's under arbitration, the ITC proceedings will be stayed.
Why then did IDCC not counterclaim for infringement rather than attacking NOK's patents? If there is a decision of non-esentiallity, this means the FRAND terms do not apply. If they are commercially essential as argued by IDCC, they are used by NOK and without FRAND applying, NOK would be facing the sharp end of an injunction.
Pumfrey is back in Court tomorrow:
COURT 18
Before MR JUSTICE PUMFREY
Tuesday, 30 October 2007
At half past 10
Robed
TRIAL LIST
TLC 593/06 Nokia Corporation v Interdigital Technology Corporation Pt Hd
M3S - the case was dismissed on procedural grounds:
BERLIN, Oct 23 (Reuters) - A German regional court on Tuesday dismissed a case on procedural grounds in which Nokia (NOK1V.HE: Quote, Profile, Research) filed a complaint against U.S chipmaker Qualcomm (QCOM.O: Quote, Profile, Research) patents in Germany.
The court in Mannheim said Nokia could appeal the decision.
Nokia, the world's top cellphone maker, and Qualcomm are in numerous legal disputes over a key cross-licensing agreement over technology patents that expired in April 2007.
Nokia has said it wanted authorities to rule that Qualcomm's patents are exhausted with respect to products sold on the European Union market with a Qualcomm licence -- in this case chipsets supplied by Texas Instruments (TXN.N: Quote, Profile, Research).
Nokia has filed a similar complaint in The Hague District Court in the Netherlands.
http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSL2331658420071023
Does the hearing in the London Patent Court start on Monday?
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/files/section1.pdf
What is interesting here is that RIMM use QCOM chips - seems that at least RIMM was sufficiently impressed by IDCCS's othere patents to take a license.
The InterDigital patents to which Qualcomm claims rights are identifed for example in:
http://contracts.onecle.com/china-techfaith/qualcomm.lic.2004.03.09.shtml
"InterDigital's Excluded Patents" means those claims of each of InterDigital's existing and future patents which cover (i) overlay, (ii) interference cancellation, (iii) trellis, PASM and TASM coding/decoding and (iv) wireless telephone debit card systems. As of November 2,1994, existing patents of
InterDigital which have claims covering the subject matter of (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) (and are therefore InterDigital's Excluded Patents) are U.S. Patent Nos. 5,351,249; 4,849,974; 4,849,976; 5,359,182; 5,161,168; 5,333,191; 5,235,670; 5,072,308; 4,974,099; 4,953,197; 5,185,762; 5,228,053; 4,796,260 and their foreign counterparts.
"InterDigital's Five Patents" means U.S. Patent Nos. 5,228,056; 5,166,951; 5,093,840; 5,119,375; and 5,179,571 and any continuation, continuation-in-part and divisional application based on such patents, and any foreign counterparts
of such patents, continuations, continuations-in-part or divisional applications.
"InterDigital Included Patents" means, with the exclusion of InterDigital's Excluded Patents, (i) every patent issued on or before March 7, 1995 (including utility models, but excluding design patents and design registrations) in the world owned or licensable by InterDigital (including but not limited to
InterDigital's Five Patents), and (ii) any subsequently issued patent (including utility models, but excluding design patents and design registrations) (whether issued to InterDigital or a third party) in the world owned or icensable by InterDigital which claims or discloses an invention contained in a patent
application filed or acquired by InterDigital anytime prior to March 8, 1995 ("Subsequently Issued InterDigital Patents"), and any counterparts (foreign or domestic) to any such Subsequently Issued InterDigital Patents whenever such
counterparts are applied for, and (iii) any continuation, continuation-in-part or divisional application based on any patent falling within (i) or (ii) above, whether such continuation, continuation-in-part or divisional application is
filed during or after March 8,1995. In the event of an acquisition of InterDigital by a third party, InterDigital Included Patents shall not be construed to cover any patents or patent applications owned by such third party
prior to the acquisition of InterDigital.
Where noted, certain information has been omitted pursuant to a request for confidential treatment and filed separately with the SEC.
"InterDigital's Patents" means (i) with respect to those CDMA Modem Cards Sold by LICENSEE which incorporate CDMA ASICs purchased from QUALCOMM, the InterDigital Included Patents and (ii) with respect to those CDMA Modem Cards
Sold by LICENSEE which do not incorporate CDMA ASICs purchased from QUALCOMM,InterDigital's Five Patents."
The '768 patent doesn't appear to be listed.
Looks like its the 21/2G iPhone which will be launched in Europe:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7000370.stm
If the 20M was a prepayment, wouldn't this be recognized for accounting purposes as the royalty became due? If AAPL have sold 1M phones in the accounting period and the income for IDCC is 2M, wouldn't this indicate a rate of $2 per phone?