The Ninth Circuit has unanimously reversed the FTC's win over Qualcomm.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/08/11/19-16122.pdf
CDN.CA9.USCOURTS.GOV
cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov
Justice Department statement on Section 230.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-issues-recommendations-section-230-reform
JUSTICE.GOV
Justice Department Issues Recommendations for Section 230 Reform
Today, in U.S. Futures Exchange, L.L.C. v. Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc., No. 18-3558, the Seventh Circuit rejected the notion of a "pattern" exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. The court confirmed that the Supreme Court's opinion in California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited does not create an exception to the Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. "objective baselessness" standard. The possible existence of a "pattern" exception was one of the issues we litigated in the Intellectual Ventures/Capital One case. We're pleased to see the Seventh Circuit join the First Circuit in rejecting the idea of a separate "pattern" exception.
December 19, 2019 USPTO, DOJ, NIST Policy Statement On Remedies For Standards-Essential Patents Subject To Voluntary F/RAND Commitments
https://www.justice.gov/atr/page/file/1228016/download
“In the years since the 2013 policy statement issued, the USPTO, NIST, and the DOJ, along with other agencies and courts in the United States and internationally, have developed additional experience with disputes concerning standards-essential patents. In that time, the agencies have heard concerns that the 2013 policy statement has been misinterpreted to suggest that a unique set of legal rules should be applied in disputes concerning patents subject to a F/RAND commitment that are essential to standards (as distinct from patents that are not essential), and that injunctions and other exclusionary remedies should not be available in actions for infringement of standards-essential patents. Such an approach would be detrimental to a carefully balanced patent system, ultimately resulting in harm to innovation and dynamic competition. Accordingly, the USPTO and the DOJ withdraw the 2013 policy statement, and together with NIST issue the present statement to clarify that, in their view, a patent owner’s F/RAND commitment is a relevant factor in determining appropriate remedies, but need not act as a bar to any particular remedy.”
JUSTICE.GOV
www.justice.gov
Law360 report on the denial of Capital One’s petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc.
https://www.law360.com/articles/1227326
LAW360.COM
Fed. Circ. Won't Redo Capital One's IP Firm Antitrust Ruling - Law360
The Federal Circuit has denied the petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc filed by Capital One in response to the court's affirmance of the summary judgment in favor of our Intellectual Ventures clients. This should be the end of Capital One's second attempt to assert identical antitrust counterclaims.
The initial counterclaims were dismissed in the Eastern District of Virginia in 2013. After a lengthy discovery period, summary judgment was granted on the second set of counterclaims in late 2017 in the District of Maryland. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment in the Maryland case earlier this year.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1367.Order.12-11-2019.1.pdf
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1367.Order.12-11-2019.2.pdf
CAFC.USCOURTS.GOV
www.cafc.uscourts.gov
MESSENGER
Freitas & Weinberg LLP updated their info in the about section.
