My talk for PatSnap is available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChQYjVMamu0
My talk for PatSnap is available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFnxo_1Tt_0
My talk for PatSnap is available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjgdgRy47Ms
My presentation for PatSnap is available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWrcfuYyRHU
Previously we addressed some of the key omissions in Unified Patents’ article “FRAND SCAM.” This post discusses the article’s failure to address the heavy criticism of the royalty calculations in the TCL decision forms the basis for the key arguments in the article. For a long time industry analysts have criticized the TCL decision on a number of grounds (see, for example, this thoughtful article by Richard Vary at Bird & Bird):
Last month, Unified Patents, also known as a PTAB reverse troll, launched its new service called Unified Consulting. Citing from its website, Unified Consulting “can meet the needs of their companies through IP consulting and data service and support. U[nified] C[onsulting] provides innovative solutions to clients […].” Unfortunately, the solutions Unified advertises are to “problems” of Unified’s own making. To drum up its reverse trolling business, Unified misdirects its readers with an article titled “FRAND SCAM” that focuses on a vacated court case on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing, without telling its readers that this case has since been by the Federal Circuit, that later court cases have contradicted its reasoning and analysis, and that industry analysts have heavily criticized it for some time. In this manner, Unified describes “problems” that do not actually exist to sell a solution that won’t actually work.
Previously we discussed a Unified Patents’ article, the “FRAND SCAM” fails to address many key points. But worse than these sins of omission, the article goes so far as to make some outlandish misrepresentations about the overturned TCL decision. For example, Unified incorrectly posits that the “court […] concluded […] that Ericsson had violated its FRAND obligations.” However, the TCL decision actually determined that Ericsson had met its FRAND obligations with respect to its course of conduct. The decision states: “Ericsson negotiated in good faith and its conduct during the course of negotiations did not violate its FRAND obligation.” (p3) The article also incorrectly claims that Ericsson agreed with TCL on the number of patents that were actually essential. However, as the TCL decision makes clear, “Ericsson made numerous challenges to the process that produced these numbers […]. Ericsson challenged the results of this process…” (p30) Ericsson challenged these numbers because TCL’s “experts” spent only 20 minutes per patent in their analysis, producing a vast over-counting of industry’s essential patents to Ericsson’s detriment. Indeed, this was the exact criticism that the UK court leveled on this type of exercise. Tellingly, a later study found the results of the 20-minute-per-patent review to be comparable to random guesswork.
As we have written previously, during the course of a United States litigation — whether, under the new, federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) or the older state-adopted Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) — plaintiffs must typically provide a description of the trade secrets allegedly stolen. What constitutes an adequate identification of the stolen or misappropriated trade secrets depends on the nature of the trade secrets, the facts of the case, and the relevant jurisdiction.
I am very pleased to report that IAM has published a short post by Eric Stasik and myself looking at Nokia’s published licensing revenue in light of the current SEP licensing ecosystem.
The article can be found on IAM’s website here: https://www.iam-media.com/frandseps/nokia-licensing-income
Apologies for the original link – as it seems to be broken. Try here in the interim.