Alert

Recommended Alerts

Sign Up For Alerts

U.K. Supreme Court Permits SEP Holders to Require Worldwide FRAND Licenses

On August 26, 2020, the U.K. Supreme Court—the U.K.’s highest court—issued its highly anticipated decision in Unwired Planet International v. Huawei involving the “Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory” (“FRAND”) licensing of standard essential patents (“SEPs”) in the telecommunications space. The decision in several consolidated cases rejected all appeals from Huawei and ZTE and affirmed the decisions from the London High Court (Justice Birss) and Court of Appeals. The Court concluded that owners of patents essential to ETSI’s telecommunications standards (including 2G, 3G, and 4G (LTE)) can demand that an implementer practicing a U.K. SEP take a license on FRAND terms to all of the patent owner’s worldwide telecommunications SEPs, and can obtain an injunction should the implementer refuse. This decision has significant implications for FRAND licensing, assertion of SEPs, and antitrust issues both in the telecommunications context and more broadly.

Read More

Federal Circuit Reverses Course, Revises Swagway v. ITC Opinion to Vacate Holding on Preclusive Effect of ITC Decisions


Time to Read: 2 minutes Practices: Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property Litigation, ITC Proceedings / Section 337, Trademark & Related IP Litigation

Printer-Friendly Version

In an opinion issued in May of this year, the Federal Circuit ruled for the first time that the ITC’s decisions regarding trademark disputes—just like its determinations on patent issues—do not have any preclusive effect on subsequent district court proceedings. (See our previous alert on the case here.) Relying heavily on prior cases involving the ITC’s patent-related determinations, which have been long held not to be binding on district courts, the court saw “no reason to differentiate between” the effects of the ITC’s trademark-related decisions and its patent-related decisions. Notably, this approach deviated with the approach espoused by other appellate courts such as the Second and Fourth Circuits, potentially teeing up the issue for Supreme Court review.

After the May opinion issued, intervenors Segway, Inc., DEKA Products Ltd. Partnership, and Ninebot (Tianjin) Technology Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Segway”) (the complainants in the underlying ITC investigation) filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc that questioned the preclusion findings in the panel opinion. The ITC—the appellee in the appeal—supported the petition for rehearing, arguing that (1) the issue of preclusive effect was not sufficiently briefed to be decided by the Federal Circuit, and (2) it should be the district court being asked to apply preclusion, not the Federal Circuit, who decides whether preclusive effect should be given to the prior judgment.

On August 14, 2019, the Federal Circuit granted the request for panel rehearing. It vacated the portion of its original opinion related to the preclusion question and issued a modified opinion. The revised opinion does not, however, affirmatively state that the ITC’s decision will have preclusive effect in a related litigation, instead leaving that question for the district court to address in the first instance. It appears that the Federal Circuit agreed with the intervenors and the ITC that the issue of preclusion was not sufficiently briefed and was not necessary to the Federal Circuit’s disposition of this appeal.

Given the uptick in non-patent ITC investigations in recent years—including trademark, trade secret, and false advertising claims—as well as the increasing stakes at issue in these proceedings, Swagway is not likely to be the last to address the interplay between ITC preclusion and non-patent claims. As noted in our prior alert on the original panel decision, other courts have had to address this issue in the past (and arrived at different conclusions), so this question may continue to percolate.

Printer-Friendly Version

Cookie Settings