NIPC Law

Author Raysonho Licence CC 1,0     Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor) Mitsubishi Electric Corporation and another v Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co Ltd and others (FRAND CMC Judgment ) [2021] EWHC 493 (Pat) (4 March 2021) This was an application for an order under Part 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules requiring the 9th to 12th defendants ("the Xiaomi defendants") to answer the claimants; requests for further information of their statement of case.  The claimants had served over 100 requests upon the Xiaomi defendants on 12 Feb 2021 most of which those defendants had offered to answer by 16 March 2021. However, there were 2 requests that they refused to answer on the grounds that they were requests for expert evidence to which the claimants were not entitled until the exchange of experts' reports. At a case management conference before Mr Justice Mellor on 2 March 2021, the claimants applied for an order requiring the 9th to 12th defendants to answer all 100 ...

Jane Lambert Just before Christmas, I was asked to speak to the Cambridge IP Law Summer School on  TMT: A SEP & FRAND   which was due to take place this week.  The invitation was offered a few weeks after counsel for the parties in  ZTE Corporation and another v Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL ,  Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and another v Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL   and  Unwired Planet International Ltd and another v Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd and another   had presented their cases to the Supreme Court and we had every hope that the Justices would have delivered their judgment by now.  Sadly, coronavirus has delayed the business of the Supreme Court and the Summer School will now take place online rather than in Cambridge.  Fortunately, I can still give my talk as planned. In FRAND   I wrote that those letters stand for "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory".  Those are the terms upon which an ...

Author Basher Eyre #   Lixnxw CC BY-SA 2. 0 Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mt Justice Marcus Smith)  Koninklijke Philips NV v Asustek Computer Inc and others  [2020] EWHC 29 (Ch) (17 Jan 2020) This was an application by Asustek Computer In c. and its subsidiaries, Asustek (UK) Ltd. and Asus Technology Pte Limited. for an order that they cease to be parties to proceedings to determine the terms upon which Koninklijke Philips NV ("Philips") should offer licences to use its patents that are essential for compliance with standards set by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute ("ETSI"}.  The application first came before Mr Justice Marcus Smith on 27 Nov 2019.  In Koninklijke Philips NV v Asustek Computer Inc. and others [2019] EWHC 3463 (Pat) (27 Nov 2019) he decided to hear the application on 13 Dec 2019.  He dismissed the application on 17 Jan 2020 in Koninklijke Philips NV v Asustek Computer Inc. and other s [2020] EWHC 29 (Ch) (1...

Author BTphotosUK Licence Attribution 2.0 Generi c Source Wikipedia Fiber to the x Jane Lambert On Monday I discussed Mr Justice Henry Carr's judgment in  TQ Delta, LLC v ZYXEL Communications Ltd and Another [2019] EWHC 562 (Pat) (11 March 2019) and mentioned the injunction he granted in  TQ Delta LLC v Zyxel Communications Ltd and another  [2019] EWHC 745 (Pat) (18 March 2019) (see Standard Essential Patents - TQ Delta, LLC v ZYXEL Communications Ltd   22 July 2019). Since then.  Since then, there have been two further hearings in the proceedings: one before Mr Justice Birss on 17 April ( TQ Delta, LLC v Zyxel Communications UK Ltd and another No 3 [2019] EWHC 1089 (Pat) (17 April 2019)) and the other before Mr Recorder Campbell QC on 19 June 2010 (see TQ Delta, LLC v Zyxel Communications UK Ltd and another [2019] EWHC 1597 (Pat) (19 June 2019)). History of the Litigation In his judgment, Mr Justice Birss noted that the action had ...

Basher Eyre /  Junction of Fetter Lane and Rolls Buildings  /  CC BY-SA 2.0 Jane Lambert Patents Court ( Mr Justice Henry Carr) TQ Delta, LLC v ZYXEL Communications Ltd and another [2019] EWHC 562 (Pat) (11 March 2019) This was a patent infringement action.  The patents in suit were European patent number EP1453268 for multicarrier communication with variable overhead rate  and European patent number EP1792430 for CRC counter normalisation . The claimant alleged that these are standard-essential patents "SEPs") - that is to say, it is impossible to comply with ITU recommended telecommunications standards for the transmission of data without using those patents. The Parties The claimant describes itself as  " a technology development and licensing company aimed at providing needed solutions for the communications industry and beyond." The homepage of its website adds that its technical investments span nea...