Aipla standards and Open Source Committee Minutes Date: August 12, 2013 Time
Download 11.56 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Chair’s Report
- Subcommittee Reports – Policy/Project Subcommittee
- Program Subcommittee
- Management Subcommittee
- In re Certain Electronic Devices, including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers ( Samsung v. Apple )
- Other Cases of Interest: Innovatio IP Ventures v. Cisco, Motorola, Netgear
- InterDigital v. Huawei Our Committee plans to discuss this case during our next meeting. New Business
|
AIPLA Standards and Open Source Committee Minutes Date: August 12, 2013 Time: 10:00 am – 11:00 am PT (1:00 pm – 2:00 pm ET) Attendees: Arthur Yuan, Peter Koch, John Lyon, Robert Wells, Kenneth Knox, Ken Frankel, Joe Wrkich, Sandy Block, Alan McClure, Richard Wolfram, Steve Klocinski, Monica Barone, Joanne Montague, Jay Westermeier, Robert Gravois, David Long, Michael Biber, Bob Payne, Stan Weinstein, Michele Herman, Carter Eltzroth, Michael Atlass, Latonia Gordon, Terry Saad
Policy/Project Subcommittee – Joe and Latonia – The Policy/Projects Subcommittee is working with the Open Source Subcommittee on the Open Source 101 Presentations project. Open Source Subcommittee – Mike A. (Jackquelyn not present) – The Subcommittee has been holding meetings to work on the Open Source 101 Presentations project. The Subcommittee is working towards putting on a panel discussion CLE on three main topics at the 2014 Annual Meeting. In addition, the topics may take the form of three webinars. The Subcommittee is looking for volunteers and materials to help in putting on the presentations. Joanne will send out a request for materials and speakers to the Committee members. Stan mentioned that he would like to be involved. Program Subcommittee – David L. (Mike S. not present) – Webinars – 86 people dialed in for the webinar that looked at Judge Robart’s decision in the Microsoft v. Motorola case and the recent ITC decision and subsequent disapproval by the USTR of the ITC’s exclusion order in the Samsung v. Apple case. Deanna Tanner Okun, formerly of the ITC, Mark Snyder from Qualcomm, and Gil Ohana from Cisco spoke on the webinar. The decisions were looked at from the points of view of both the licensor and the licensee. David commented that the webinar was simple to put together. The webinar required a $1500 sponsor fee to pay for the webinar’s tools. David will reach out to the new Program Chair, and the idea is for either David or Mike to attend the Programs Meeting at the Annual Meeting. The Subcommittee co-chairs would like to set up a meeting with the new Program Chair to determine how best to get in the loop with setting up our Committee’s programs. Management Subcommittee – Joanne – No report given.
New Lawyers Committee – In re Certain Electronic Devices, including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers (Samsung v. Apple): Bob Wells of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow gave an overview of the lengthy publicly released opinion in the Samsung v. Apple litigation in the ITC. Samsung filed suit in the ITC alleging that Apple infringes several Samsung patents. Apple and Samsung are both members of ETSI. Samsung declared that two patents may be considered essential to ETSI standards. Apple contended that Samsung forfeited any right to obtain an exclusion order when it made its licensing commitment for the SEPs. The ITC did not find that Samsung’s royalty offers have been unreasonable or lacking good faith. Although the ITC did not look at the royalty rate, it did require negotiations in good faith. The ITC did not agree with Apple’s arguments that Samsung was obligated to make an initial offer to Apple of a specific FRAND royalty rate or that Samsung’s attempt to negotiate a cross-license of both parties’ mobile telephone patent portfolios is unreasonable. The ITC did not rule on the essentiality of the patents, but did consider whether the SEPs are unenforceable because of failure to disclose the SEPs to ETSI. The ITC did not determine whether Samsung had timely disclosed its SEPs to ETSI, explaining that ETSI itself cannot agree on what “timely” is. The ITC noted that Samsung made a FRAND declaration to any of its patents that read on ETSI’s standards. The ITC rejected Apple’s unenforceability defense. Because the ITC determined that Samsung infringed one of Apple’s patents, the ITC analyzed the public interest factors when determining whether there should be an exclusion order. The appendix of the decision contains public policy arguments. There are two sides: (1) that patent hold up would create problems, and (2) that reverse patent hold up would create problems and patent hold up is not a problem. The ITC issued an exclusion order. Subsequently, the USTR disapproved of the ITC’s exclusion order. The President may disapprove an order on policy grounds within 60 days of the order. This authority is assigned to the USTR. The USTR letter provides that in any future cases involving SEPs, the ITC should investigate whether the patent is an SEP, and whether there is patent hold up or reverse patent hold up present. The USTR letter referred to the January 8, 2013 letter from the DOJ and USPTO that is a policy statement on remedies for SEPs. There are currently three SEP-related cases before the ITC. It remains to be seen whether the ITC will determine FRAND rates. Our Committee will attempt to have a guest speaker for our next call on the ITC process. Other Cases of Interest: Innovatio IP Ventures v. Cisco, Motorola, Netgear Innovatio’s patents were previously owned by entities, including Broadcom, that made FRAND commitments. Innovatio brought actions against the users of wireless internet technology not the manufacturers of devices used by the users. The manufacturers filed a declaratory judgment action asserting that the devices, etc. do not infringe Innovatio’s patents and that the patents are invalid. The court found that members of IEEE are direct beneficiaries and users are third-party beneficiaries of the FRAND commitments to IEEE. Other issues that were looked at by the court include breach of contract and whether the asserted patent claims are standards-essential. The forum is N.D. Illinois. InterDigital v. Huawei Our Committee plans to discuss this case during our next meeting.
Next meeting: Monday, September 23, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. PT (1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. ET). Adjourned. Directory: committees -> committee pages committees -> Dec. 2, 2009 Consultation Paper on Regulatory Capital Requirements and Overarching Accounting/Valuation Issues for the Solvency Modernization Initiative committees -> Emergency Interoperability Consortium Membership Meeting committees -> Technical Communicators, Get ready: Here comes Augmented Reality! Rhonda Truitt committees -> Oasis set tc committees -> Isme presentation to Joint Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation Access to Finance: the sme perspective committees -> Athletics, Council on Minutes – 2013-2014 February 28, 2014 Members Present committees -> Mark fleischhauer karen hatter diane kantros committees -> Santa Ana College Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment Committee committees -> Agenda Call to Order at 1: 33pm approvals committee pages -> Draft october 22, 2014 aipla electronic and Computer Law Committee Software White Paper Download 11.56 Kb. Share with your friends:
|