Mitigating smartphone patent litigation
Patent trolls may be a frequent topic of conversation in the legal technology space, however, there are still a number of companies that license and distribute patent rights in the proper way.
January 17, 2014 at 04:11 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Patent trolls may be a frequent topic of conversation in the legal technology space, however, there are still a number of companies that license and distribute patent rights in the proper way. Consider some of the most prevalent technology of our time that helps to power the smartphones and mobile devices that dictate our lives today, such as Bluetooth enabled headsets, voice activated software and wireless device technology.
According to a recent Forbes article, in the tech industry, it's common practice for a governing body to develop technical standards for any given technology to promote widespread adoption and compatibility among various devices. Not only do these technologies span from device to device but they also help opposing manufacturers to integrate their devices with that of another competitor. While the notion of working together with a competing provider may seem ineffective for profitability, with the proliferation of multi-channel devices, any consumer has the potential to own and use an array of different brands at one time; therefore, it is actually in a manufacturer's favor to integrate their products to work well with others so they are compatible.
Intellectual property owners that are smart, work to have their patents included in these standards, so in order to comply with any given standard, it's necessary to license their patents. These patents are known as standard-essential patents (SEPs) and the owners of the patent can charge fees to anyone wanting to act in accordance with with the standard requirements.
The report adds that standards bodies often act as regulators, setting rules in order to prevent the owners of SEPs from abusing their newfound power. But the rules tend to be surprisingly indefinable, especially considering the precise technical specifications of the patents at hand.
A new research paper investigates ways to make these patents more efficient. The paper goes on to explore and endorse the idea of “structured price commitments,” where all holders of potentially relevant patents agree to a price cap on royalties just before a standard is set.
Oftentimes, more than one organization will compete to set standards for technologies with similar functions, each competing for market share. One way to compete for the best patents is to offer terms that are more loose than those of the competing standard-setting organization.
Unfortunately, the only way to make structured pricing work is to enact a federal policy that mandates it, despite inevitable protestations from big firms with thousands of standards-potential patents.
For related news on patent litigation in the tech space, read these related articles:
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
© 2025 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 AllAmex Latest Target as Regulators Scrutinize Whether Credit Card Issuers Deliver on Rewards Promises
Wells Fargo and Bank of America Agree to Pay Combined $60 Million to Settle SEC Probe
‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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