JURISDICTION REPORT: US PATENTS
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION UNSETTLES PATENT BAR
Paul J. Sutton Sutton Magidoff LLP
On August 3, President Obama’s administration did the unexpected. In a rare move, a Samsung legal victory was destroyed by the administration’s vetoing of a US International Trade Commission (ITC) ban on the import and sale of a number of rival Apple’s iPhones and iPads. Te veto by US Trade Representative Michael Froman was the first of its kind by a presidential administration since 1987, and was founded upon concerns that there was “undue leverage” being gained by the owners of patents.
Te decision was also based upon the view that in the absence of this veto, there would be potential harm to US consumers as well as to competitive conditions in the US economy. Froman has indicated that his decision was reached only aſter extensive consultation with US governmental trade bodies and agencies. In the view of Samsung and others, the administration’s veto will have the effect of upsetting decades of settled expectations on the part of patent holders seeking to stop the importation of infringing products.
Patent litigation attorneys have traditionally relied upon both court and, where appropriate (and where a domestic industry is involved), ITC forums to initiate their infringement actions. Te ITC has been favoured by those of us who litigate because of its ‘rocket docket’ and, until now, its relatively predictable power to award an import ban to the winner.
Tis move does not prejudice Samsung’s rights to continue its patent infringement litigation in the courts, although it has been stripped of a valuable IP weapon that has increasingly gained favour among patent holders faced with infringers. Not all Apple iPhones and iPads would have been affected by the ITC ban. In June, aſter finding that Apple had infringed Samsung’s patent rights, the ITC had ordered the ban as well as an accompanying cease and desist order that covered some older iPad and iPhone models which are still on retailers’ shelves. Te ban had not covered Apple’s most recent and popular iPhone 5.
Critics of the veto are marshalling their forces with a view toward lobbying the administration to change its course. Tose who enforce the US antitrust laws are among the parties who are expected to make their objections known. On the other hand, there has been a rising chorus of those who were opposed to the ITC ban. Among the arguments of this latter group is the view that companies should not be able to stop the sale of competitors’ products which include patented features deemed to be ‘standard essential’. Tis term is used to describe features comprising technologies which are overseen by industry standards-setting groups.
Prior to the ban’s veto, Apple and others had unsuccessfully argued before the ITC that Samsung had committed itself to negotiate in a fair and reasonable manner the terms of a licence under its standard essential
www.worldipreview.com
patents, but had failed to do so. It has been Apple’s position that Samsung’s actions constitute an abuse of the patent system. Samsung, on the other hand, has consistently countered that it had offered Apple a licence but that Apple had refused to accept reasonable financial terms.
Te mobile device market is believed to be approaching half a trillion dollars per year in the US. As a result, the number of patent infringement actions filed has steadily increased. Rulings by the ITC and its role in patent infringement actions have divided those quarters of the technology industry responsible for creating inventions.
On one side of this divide, companies express concern that patent holders should be unrestrained from lawfully seeking licence income on their patents. On the other side, companies continue to worry that courts and trade agencies such as the ITC have the ability to impose import bans on products covered by patents granted on minute improvements in product features.
A significant issue affected by the administration’s ITC veto concerns the valuation of patents. Patents have traditionally been considered more valuable where their enforcement will permit their holders to obtain an injunction against infringers. Investors, for example, oſten seek as their investment candidates those whose products and technology are proprietary and which are covered by patents which may be enforced against rivals at the ITC. Te inability to predict ITC import bans will require a different analysis approach on the part of investors.
Paul J. Sutton is a founding partner of IP boutique law firm Sutton Magidoff LLP. He can be contacted at:
paul@suttonmagidoff.com
World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2013 187
“SAMSUNG, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS CONSISTENTLY COUNTERED THAT IT HAD OFFERED APPLE A LICENCE BUT THAT APPLE HAD REFUSED TO ACCEPT REASONABLE FINANCIAL TERMS.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196