Dr Thomas Gniadek’s Post

Unified Patent Court dispute settled: Seoul Semiconductor sued Amazon over an LED patent (EP3339920 on a "photoluminescence device and display panel including the same") a few months ago in the Dusseldorf Local Division. That company boasts an undefeated streak of LED patent assertions against manufacturers like Philips as well as resellers such as Conrad Electronic Group. Amazon wasn't going to risk a UPC-wide injunction. Apparently settlement discussions picked up speed quickly, which is why the plaintiff was fine with extensions of time for the defendant's responsive pleading. Now they've settled, and the UPC will return 60% of the advance on court fees. Panel: Presiding Judge (and judge-rapporteur) Ronny Thomas, Judge Dr. Bérénice Thom, Judge Margot Kokke. Counsel for plaintiff: Linklaters's Dr. Christopher Bolko Ehlgen and Dr. Julia Schönbohm. Counsel for defendant: Hogan Lovells's Dr. Steffen Steininger and Dr. Benjamin Schröer. https://lnkd.in/dRqvcvUg

The latest edition of Sisvel Insights' Patent Transactions Watch has been published, with a round-up designed to keep patent owners, technology users and their advisers abreast of patent transfers with the potential to affect the licensing landscape. Patent assets, writes Jacob Schindler, remain a key bargaining chip in high-level dealmaking. A July transaction between Ericsson and Oppo, for example, coincided with a new patent cross-licence between the pair. Over the summer, USPTO assignments also saw two agreements which helped bring litigation to a close. In the case of a dispute between Philips and Telit Cinterion, the claimant received assets from an accused infringer. In the other, plaintiff Open Text Corp surrendered over 100 patents to a company it had named as a litigation defendant. They were not the only developments, though. Read more here: https://lnkd.in/dFBgPm9Y

The UPC's Court of Appeal has entered another order concerning a withdrawal of an appeal with respect to a subset of the appellees. As ip fray reported yesterday (https://lnkd.in/dBW7HVVC), the second panel (Judges Kalden, Simonsson, Rombach) denied a withdrawal with respect to some of the appellees in a Daedalus Prime v. Xiaomi Technology case. This morning, another order bearing yesterday's date and involving xiaomi (but in German), has been published by the same panel: https://lnkd.in/dwVckZ8H In Nera Innovations v. Xiaomi, the pattern was pretty much the same: the appellees in question had already responded to the appeal, and wanted to remain parties to the appeal. The court's guidance ("Leitsatz") translates as follows: "If an appellant seeks the withdrawal of its appeal with respect to one or two of multiple appellees, the Court of Appeal decides on the admissibility and legal effects of such a motion. The Court of Appeal takes into consideration whether the relevant appellees have already received the opening brief on appeal, whether they insist on obtaining a decision with respect to themselves, and whether they have a legitimate interest in such decision." Like in Daedalus Prime v. Xiaomi, the Court of Appeal leaves for another day the question of whether it is permissible to withdraw an appeal with respect to a subset of the appellees. Counsel of record: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer's Eva Acker for Xiaomi, and peterreins schley's Dr. Thomas Adam for the plaintiff.

We need to understand who is behind these types of initiatives. Do they intend to continue to undermine the U.S. Patent system and leave U.S. inventors with even fewer tools to protect their intellectual property? https://lnkd.in/gU3dp37e "Under the proposed rule, a terminal disclaimer must include an agreement that the patent will be unenforceable if it is tied directly or indirectly to another patent that has any claim invalidated or canceled based on prior art (anticipation or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103). "

UPC Court of Appeal decides all patent owners are required for valid opt-out, and denies withdrawal of appeal as to select appellees Both decisions were made by the Court of Appeal's second panel (Presiding Judge Rian Kalden, Judges Ingeborg Simonsson and Patricia Rombach). 1) In Neo Wireless v. Toyota Motor Europe, an opt-out attempt failed because one national part of the European patent in question belonged to a Neo entity that had not requested an opt-out. The Court of Appeal held that the language of the relevant rules is not unambiguous, but the legislative intent is for the UPC to have jurisdiction in case of doubt. Judge Kalden authored the opinion. Neo is represented by COHAUSZ & FLORACK's Dr. Christoph Walke, Matthias Waters and Martin Rütten. Toyota is represented by DLA Piper's Dr. Constanze Krenz and David Kless. 2) In Daedalus Prime v. Xiaomi Technology, the plaintiff appealed a decision concerning service of process. Three days after two Xiaomi entities (from the Netherlands and Germany) filed their responsive brief on appeal, Daedalus sought to drop them from the appeal. But they wanted to remain involved. The decision, authored by Judge Simonsson, leaves for another day the question of whether a partial withdrawal with respect to select appellees is possible at all. Even if one assumed so, the court would have to assess the legitimacy of the other parties' interest in obtaining a decision, and on that basis Daedalus's motion would fail anyway. The prevailing Xiaomi entities are represented by BARDEHLE PAGENBERG's Prof. Dr. Tilman Müller-Stoy. Daedalus is represented by peterreins schley's Dr. Marc Grunwald. https://lnkd.in/dnkwXPJn

A good decision for individual inventors and small companies with patent portfolios.

The patent office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board allows petitioners to challenge the validity of specific patents. The process, known as inter partes review (IPR), is often used by big tech companies that are frequently targeted with patent lawsuits to contest patents they are accused of infringing. #Apple #AppleVirnetxCase #VLSITechnology #OpenskyIndustries #ETTelecom

Seoul Semiconductor Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit against Amazon in the European Unified Patent Court Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. (SSC) has taken legal action against Amazon (Amazon Services Europe) by filing a patent infringement lawsuit in the European Unified Patent Court. The lawsuit seeks an injunction to stop the sale of infringing LED products. SSC emphasizes the importance of respecting intellectual property rights, particularly in the LED industry, where fair competition is essential. The asserted patents in the lawsuit cover groundbreaking technologies related to adjusting the brightness and color of LED lighting products over time, as well as heat dissipation in LED packages, which is crucial for automotive lighting applications. These technologies are widely used in smart lighting and color-tunable lighting products. Han seon Park, Executive Vice President of SSC's marketing department, emphasizes the importance of fair competition and the detrimental impact of infringing products on the market. Despite the emphasis on ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) management, some large LED companies continue to distribute infringing products without regard for intellectual property rights, affecting not only SSC but also the entire industry. Business Wire Source: https://lnkd.in/gesxZsSx

Our Eye on IPRs blog covers two Federal Circuit rulings that upheld the invalidation of patents, one regarding a finding of analogous art and the other regarding Section 101. https://lnkd.in/gKJZAuP4

South Korean patent management company Mimir IP has filed a lawsuit against Micron Technology, alleging infringement of six chip-related patents acquired from SK Hynix. The lawsuit, filed on June 3 with the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the US International Trade Commission, also names Dell, HP, Lenovo, and Tesla for using the allegedly infringing technology. The patents in question involve voltage measurement devices and non-volatile memory devices. Mimir IP, a non-practicing entity (NPE), typically acquires patents for litigation rather than commercial use, a practice often associated with 'patent trolls.' Micron has faced similar lawsuits in the past, and recently was ordered to pay Netlist $445 million for patent infringement. This case adds to the series of high-profile patent disputes in the tech industry, highlighting the ongoing legal challenges faced by major technology companies. #thinxintellectualpropertyprotection #intellectualproperty #ip #thinxaboutip #patent #patenttrolls #npe #litigation #micron