article thumbnail

FRAND Or Not: The 5G Patent Licensing Dispute Between Ericsson and Apple

IPilogue

Ericsson requests for a declaration that the license rate ($5 per handset or $2.5 SEP is defined as a patented invention that is essential to the use of an industry standard. Ericsson’s 5G patent in this dispute is an example of SEP that can be used by anyone else as long as they pay a reasonable price for licensing.

Licensing 106
article thumbnail

Aristocrat Technologies: The Future Patentability of Gaming Technology and Computer-Implemented Inventions

LexBlog IP

Although in theory the ruling should provide more clarity on the increasingly important question of the patentability of computer-implemented inventions ( CIIs ), the opposing views taken by the two camps of justices may instead create an environment for greater disputation. ’ [16] Is the claimed invention a manner of manufacture? .’

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

India’s High Court of Delhi issues guidance on SEP licensing that seeks to harmonize decisions in other countries (Intex v. Ericsson)

LexBlog IP

This is an important decision to review in understanding licensing and litigation of international SEP portfolios. This decision indicates that a FRAND commitment is not a one-way street, but imposes obligations on both the SEP owner and someone seeking to license the SEP. This decision indicates they should.

article thumbnail

Pesticide Patents: Not ‘Working’ Out?

SpicyIP

In this post, I shall discuss the impact of non-working, the possible remedies in revocation and compulsory licensing, the issues surrounding disclosure of working and possible reforms in the system. The White Paper analysed the ‘working’ of patented pesticides in India for patents expiring between 2015 and 2022. Impact of Non-Working.

Patent 126
article thumbnail

When is an IP agreement between a university and a student inventor unfair?

The IPKat

In 2015, Mr. Jing co-founded Oxford Nanoimaging Ltd (ONI). In 2016, ONI licensed the Nanoimager from the University, whereby the University received royalties on ONI’s sales of the Nanoimager based on the terms of the IP Provisions. As well, he contributed to the further development of the Nanoimager. Who owned the patent?

article thumbnail

Written Description: Four Points Are Not A Range

Patently-O

May 18, 2015, now abandoned; The ‘462 Application is a continuation of application No. ” [The patentee] failed to provide persuasive evidence demonstrating that a person of ordinary skill would have understood from reading the ’571 application that it disclosed an invention with a range of 48.2 Patent 9,687,454 via IPR.

article thumbnail

[GuestPost] Opinion: Skirting FRAND requirements under the guise of promoting innovation and efficiency (Part I)

The IPKat

Merpel wonders where we are headed on the FRAND licensing level debate, and who is in the driver's seat? The Fifth Circuit will soon address an antitrust complaint alleging a conspiracy to deny FRAND licenses to component suppliers in favor of licensing car companies. Neither of these positions withstands scrutiny.