Bright Line
Under its settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Google Inc. agreed to a consent order requiring that it offer rivals a chance to license…
March 26, 2013 at 07:17 AM
3 minute read
Under its settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Google Inc. agreed to a consent order requiring that it offer rivals a chance to license its standard-essential patents (SEPs) on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms, and that it abandon its claims for injunctive relief on any of its SEPs with a FRAND commitment.
The consent decree is only binding on Google, but in the ongoing debate over SEPs, it's one of the brighter lines in the area, says David Long, a member at Dow Lohnes.
“It's fairly significant because it's [an SEP-related matter] where action was actually taken,” Long says. “When you're in an area like this where there are a lot of questions about what to do, any kind of guidance is going to have an impact. Even though it's not binding, it will be something that courts and others will [give weight to] when they address the same issue.”
The FTC's approach here also generally falls in line with a joint policy statement that the Justice Department and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued Jan. 8, in which they said courts should implement monetary damages rather than injunctive relief in cases involving SEP infringement.
Under its settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC),
The consent decree is only binding on
“It's fairly significant because it's [an SEP-related matter] where action was actually taken,” Long says. “When you're in an area like this where there are a lot of questions about what to do, any kind of guidance is going to have an impact. Even though it's not binding, it will be something that courts and others will [give weight to] when they address the same issue.”
The FTC's approach here also generally falls in line with a joint policy statement that the Justice Department and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued Jan. 8, in which they said courts should implement monetary damages rather than injunctive relief in cases involving SEP infringement.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFinancial Services Has a Trust Problem. Can GCs Help Right the Ship?
Google Fails to Secure Long-Term Stay of Order Requiring It to Open App Store to Rivals
Rates Will Go Up (Again), But Here's Why Profitability Might Not Be Maximized
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5A RICO Surge Is Underway: Here's How the Allstate Push Might Play Out
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250