Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Communication was decided on August 4, 2020, on appeal from the District of Delaware. At trial, Plaintiff IP Bridge argued that the asserted patents are essential to a standard and that Defendant TCL’s accused devices are compatible with the standard. The jury found …
TCL Communication v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson was decided on December 5, 2019 on appeal from the Central District of California. Following a bench trial, the district court determined that declaratory defendant Ericsson’s proposed offers were not “fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory” (FRAND). “Over Ericsson’s repeated assertions of its jury trial right,” …
Core Wireless v. Apple was decided on August 16, 2018 on appeal from the Northern District of California. Both patents concern technology for wireless communication in a digital network. The jury found that defendant Apple infringed both plaintiff Core Wireless’s asserted claims. The district court then rejected Apple’s argument that one asserted patent was …
Chrimar Holding v. ALE USA is a nonprecedential case decided on May 8, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. All four asserted patents were standard essential. Before trial the district court denied ALE’s motion to exclude the testimony of Chrimar’s damages expert regarding a reasonable royalty. A jury found …
Scientific v. Cisco was decided on December 3, 2015 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. There, the patent-in-suit concerned wireless local area network technology, and was included in the 802.11a “Wi-Fi” standard (first published in 1999). Around 2003, plaintiff Scientific developed a form license offer (“the Rate Card”), which it …