Google/FTC deal will affect future technology patent disputes
Last week, Google Inc. and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement that put an end to the FTCs antitrust investigation of the technology giant.
January 07, 2013 at 06:51 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Last week, Google Inc. and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement that put an end to the FTC's antitrust investigation of the technology giant. Part of the agreement dealt with how Google can use its patents—provisions that may have an effect on other technology patent holders and licensees.
The FTC accused Google of failing to license its standard essential patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. Standard essential patents are patents held on inventions that must be used to conform to certain industry standards. As part of the settlement, Google will drop some of its claims for injunctive relief in patent disputes with competitors and accept the judgment of the court for any payment disputes that crop up.
On Thursday, the FTC said this deal could serve as a “template” for other patent holders, Thomson Reuters reports. Though the settlement isn't binding to other companies, defendants could use it to argue against injunctions from standard essential patent holders.
But, as always in this life, things are not that simple. The FTC settlement still allows Google to seek injunctions against licensees who are unwilling to accept fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. What exactly constitutes an unwilling licensee remains to be seen, but could end up being manipulated by standard essential patent holders.
Whatever happens, this deal is certainly going to shake things up in the technology patent world.
Read more InsideCounsel coverage of standard essential patents:
How Apple v. Motorola could alter patent litigation
Technology: Standard adopters need to beware of injunctions
Technology: Can reasonable and nondiscriminatory licensing terms follow a purchased patent?
This content has been archived.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 All
Inside Track: Cooley's Modest Proposal to Make Executives Safer
Trending Stories
- 1There's a New Chief Judge in Town: Meet the Top Miami Jurist
- 2RIP DOJ FCPA Corporate Prosecutions
- 3Federal Trade Commission’s Updates to the Health Breach Notification Rule Now In Effect
- 4I’m A Lawyer, What Can I Sell?
- 5Internal GC Hires Rebounded in '24, but Companies Still Drawn to Outside Candidates
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
