Welcome to Skilled in the Art. I'm Law.com IP reporter Scott Graham. Isn't summer supposed to be the slow news season? Not in IP land. Nokia appears to have regained the upper hand in its patent dispute with Daimler and Continental Automotive Systems (though it's only Friday so things could change again by the end of the week). The Federal Trade Commission has a coolly dismissive response to Qualcomm's and DOJ's nuclear nightmare arguments. Giant global law firms continue to add IP partners. And Nike is in another copyright fight involving an NBA icon's logo. Let's get to it. As always you can email me your own thoughts and follow me on Twitter.

Nokia Obtains Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction

I had some fun a few weeks back with Nokia's attempt to move a FRAND licensing dispute out of San Jose. Now it looks as if Nokia is going to have the last laugh—or, at least, the next one—in its worldwide patent disputes with Daimler and Continental Automotive Systems.

Continental is asking U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh to issue an anti-suit injunction that would put Nokia's patent litigation in Germany on hold while its FRAND obligations are determined in San Jose. But Nokia has now persuaded a German court to enjoin Continental from pursuing the anti-suit injunction.

“The Munich Court's injunction is designed to preserve its jurisdiction and maintain the current status quo between the Nokia-Daimler German Cases and this case,” Alston & Bird partner Matt Richardson explained in a July 17 letter brief to Koh in Continental v. Avanci.

According to Richardson, the German injunction—issued ex parte on July 11 and still subject to challenge—requires Continental to withdraw its anti-suit motion. Failure to do so could subject Continental board members to fines or even detention.

Nokia and Daimler began negotiating over patents that are essential for cellular-equipped cars in 2017. Daimler and its telematics supplier Continental have complained to the European Commission that Nokia is shirking its FRAND licensing commitments.

Nokia says Daimler is simply trying to avoid paying a license. Nokia sued for patent infringement in March in Germany and then in May asked the German courts to enjoin Daimler from selling its cars. Continental, represented by Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, filed its FRAND challenge in San Jose two days later.

In Wednesday's brief, Alston's Richardson assures Koh that, under German and EU law, the German court will take into account Nokia's FRAND obligations. “Nokia has made a FRAND licensing offer to Daimler AG,” he writes, “and has committed to hold that offer open following the ruling on infringement and remedies in the German cases.”

FTC to 9th Circuit: Competition Is a Good Thing

In Tuesday's newsletter I reported that the U.S. Justice, Defense and Energy departments are backing Qualcomm in its antitrust fight with the Federal Trade Commission. The DOJ's Antitrust Division filed a statement with the Ninth Circuit arguing that if Judge Koh's injunction isn't stayed immediately, Qualcomm will be harmed and rivals such as Huawei Technologies will be strengthened as 5G connectivity is rolled out, to the detriment of U.S. national and even nuclear security.

The FTC filed its opposition Thursday, engaging more on the merits of Koh's decision and less directly on national security. But it did have a few sharp words for Justice along the way.

“Qualcomm's argument, at bottom, is that the injunction entered below will cause it to lose revenues,” the FTC states in a brief signed by Deputy General Counsel Heather Hippsley. “But the order permits Qualcomm to secure every dollar to which it is entitled: market-based prices for its chips, and royalties that reflect the value of its patents.”

Koh found after a bench trial that Qualcomm's “no-license-no-chips” policy and its refusal to license standard-essential patents to competitors has “strangled competition” in the modem chip market. She ordered Qualcomm to offer licenses to competitors and “negotiate or renegotiate, as applicable” licenses with smartphone makers.

That will help development of 5G, the FTC argues. “The policy judgment underlying the antitrust laws is that an industry will be more innovative and efficient if freed from anticompetitive constraints,” Hippsley writes.

The DOJ's claims about national security are “unsubstantiated” and misplaced. “Nothing in the remedy requires any catastrophic financial impact to Qualcomm,” she writes. “Indeed, the record shows that Qualcomm spends more on stock buybacks and dividends than it does on R&D.”

What DOJ wants is for Qualcomm to be freed from antitrust scrutiny, Hippsley contends. “If legitimate national security objectives require subsidizing Qualcomm, and taxing Qualcomm's rivals and United States consumers to do so, there are proper political channels for pursuing those objectives,” she concludes.

Winston's Bloch Bounces To Greenberg Traurig

IP litigator David Bloch is moving his practice to Greenberg Traurig after 13 years with Winston & Strawn.

Bloch said he has nothing but good things to say about Winston and his colleagues there, but couldn't pass up the opportunity to join Greenberg, which with nearly 2,000 lawyers across 40 offices has about double the footprint.

“It felt like it an opportunity I couldn't say no to, so at the end of the day I didn't say no,” said Bloch, who will join Greenberg's San Francisco office on Monday.

Adding to the appeal was that former Winston colleagues, such as Chuck Birenbaum and Brad Marsh, now practice at Greenberg. Bloch also worked with Greenberg partner Scott Oliver when the two were starting out at Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich.

“I feel as if I'm going to a place where I've already got friends and even a network,” Bloch said.

Eversheds Adds Foley Partners

In other hiring news, my ALM colleague Meredith Hobbs reports that Eversheds Sutherland is launching a San Diego office with three IP litigators from Foley & Lardner. Partners Jose Patino, Nicola Pisano and Christopher Bolten are expected to join Eversheds within the next couple of weeks.

San Diego is the second new office the firm has launched—the first was in Chicago—since the 2017 tie-up between the U.K.'s Eversheds and Atlanta-based Sutherland Asbill & Brennan.

The Claw logo, original and finished versions, according to Nike

Kawhi Claims Copyright of the Claw

My ALM colleague Ross Todd has a rundown on NBA superstar Kawhi Leonard's IP suit against Nike last month and Nike's response, which was filed Wednesday.

Leonard alleges that he is the author of “The Claw” logo—which highlights his notably large hands, his jersey number and his initials—and that Nike registered it with the Copyright Office without his knowledge or consent. Nike responds that Leonard provided only a rough sketch and that Nike's designers made significant changes.

Both sides come armed with tricky facts. Leonard says Nike has referred to the design as “Kawhi's logo” in written communications. Nike points to a 2014 article that quotes Leonard as saying, “I give the [Nike] team all the credit because I'm no artist at all.”

Leonard is represented by Sullivan & Worcester and Duckor Spradling Metzger & Wynne. Nike is represented by DLA Piper. The most remarkable thing to me is that Leonard's attorneys chose to file suit during the NBA finals. It caused such a distraction that Leonard was named finals MVP.

Daniel Bress testifies at his May 2019 confirmation hearing.

Daniel Bress' Walk-Off Shot

At the AmLaw Litigation Daily, my colleague Jenna Greene says that former Kirkland & Ellis partner Daniel Bress would have won Litigator of the Week if he hadn't gone and gotten himself confirmed to the Ninth Circuit on July 9.

Bress and Kirkland secured summary judgment for Honeywell International on Tuesday in a high-stakes trade secret fight against Dutch industrial giant DSM. They persuaded a North Carolina judge there was no evidence that Honeywell misappropriated revolutionary technology used by the U.S. military for its “enhanced combat helmet.”

Judge: That IP Trial Turned Out to Be Pretty Good

Before they went to trial last month, San Diego County Superior Court Judge Timothy Casserly leaned hard on California-based Viasat Inc. and Massachusetts' Acacia Communications Inc. to settle their IP dispute over fiber optic technology.

But the case did go to trial and a jury on Wednesday awarded Viasat $49 million on its contract claims while awarding only $1 for Acacia's willful misappropriation of trade secrets, as I reported here.

So maybe they should have settled? In any event, Casserly didn't appear to hold any hard feelings. Following closing arguments last week he had kind words for both trial teams, led by Ken Fitzgerald of Fitzgerald Knaier for Viasat and Michael Albert of Wolf, Greenefield & Sacks.

“I have to say this is the most professionally tried case I have ever seen in my 20-some years on the bench,” he told counsel.

“I have always thought this case should have settled,” the judge noted again, “but if you had to go to war, both sides went to war with the most amazing, well-prepared lawyers on both sides.”

That's all from Skilled in the Art this week. I'll see you all again on Tuesday.