InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[olddog967]

laranger: Would just like to comment on your statement that "And failing to declare essentiality doesn't make a patent non-essential." While the statement is true, failure to declare could have serious consequences.

The famous case in this area is Rambus v. Infineon. Rambus did not disclose their patents during the standards process and then later sued Infineon for infringement. Infineon filed a counter claim, and a Federal District Court jury ruled in Infineon's favor that Rambus had been guilty of fraud. This decision was overturned by the Appeals Court, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Infineon finally settled with Rambus. While this case was going on the FTC filed an anti trust action against Rambus based on the same circumstances. This action was subsequently dismissed by the FTC's Chief Administrative Judge.

Although Rambus was exonerated in both cases, the decisions were narrowly based primarily on the fact that the rules at that time of the particular standards body involved were vague in regard to the need to disclose essential patents. Apparently if the rules were more specific Rambus may have lost. If so the consequences would have been harsh as the District Court had issued an injunction against Rambus and awarded Infineon attorney fees, and the  FTC would have restricted Rambus from filing any infringement suits.