Remove Licensing Remove Patent Infringement Remove Settlement Remove Technology
article thumbnail

Caddo v. Siemens: Microsoft Settlement Covers Downstream Use and No Jurisdiction Over Foreign Parent

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch A short non-precedential opinion from the Federal Circuit provides guidance on two key issues: (1) downstream non-party reliance upon settlement agreements; and (2) personal jurisdiction over foreign corporations. In defending its actions, Siemens argued that the Microsoft.NET license provided a complete shield.

article thumbnail

NPE Showcase – Sockeye Licensing

LexBlog IP

This is the latest in the series titled “NPE Showcase,” where we discuss high-volume non-practicing entities (or as some call them, “patent trolls”). This installment will focus on a company named Sockeye Licensing TX, LLC. Settlement agreements are typically confidential so the exact arrangement is unclear.

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

Litigation as a Source of Profit? Non-Practicing Entities and Patent Litigation

IPilogue

The first kind, academic institutions, acquire patents to protect the research work of their faculty and researchers while licensing others to use the results of the research produced without commodifying the patent. They do not practice, develop, manufacture, or otherwise commercialize the patent.

article thumbnail

Fish & Richardson Obtains Initial Determination Recommending a General Exclusion Order for Skull Shaver in Patent Infringement Dispute

Fish & Richardson Trademark & Copyright Thoughts

Shenzhen Junmao International Technology Co., Shenzhen Wantong Information Technology Co., Yiwu Xingye Network Technology Co., The default judgments precluded these respondents from appearing in the Investigation and contesting the allegations at issue regarding infringement of Skull Shaver’s ’528 Patent and ’504 Patent.

article thumbnail

Analysis of February 2024 Delhi High Court Judgment in InterDigital v. Oppo – I

SpicyIP

This post does not, in any manner, get into the arena of willingness or unwillingness of defendants to enter into a licensing agreement. Background The Petitioner, InterDigital (“ID”), initiated patent infringement proceedings against Oppo, One Plus and Redme (“defendants”) concerning 8 standard essential patents.

article thumbnail

SpicyIP Weekly Review (September 27 – October 3)

SpicyIP

Zolgensma and the Inadequacies of the Compulsory Licensing Regime. Akhil discusses the compulsory licensing provisions in the TRIPS Agreement, as well as the objectives and principles relating to safeguarding public interest in Articles 7 and 8 and how they find reflection in India’s Patent Act. Poster for Zolgensma.

article thumbnail

Unpacking IDC v Lenovo (Part I): The approach on unpacking and comparing prior licence agreements

The IPKat

He rejected the argument that the royalty in SEP licensing of mobile devices should depend on usage. He rejected the argument that the royalty in SEP licensing of mobile devices should depend on usage. Instead, the royalty on a 4G/LTE phone is paid because of the potential of that device to use the technology ([291]).