Курсы английского
<<  The Case for an ILO Convention on Supply Chain Responsibility BlazeSports Institute for Applied Science CDSS Level II Curriculum  >>
Declaratory Judgment Actions
Declaratory Judgment Actions
Declaratory Judgment Actions
Declaratory Judgment Actions
Breach of Contract
Breach of Contract
Breach of Contract
Breach of Contract
Promissory Estoppel – Elements
Promissory Estoppel – Elements
Promissory Estoppel
Promissory Estoppel
Equitable Estoppel
Equitable Estoppel
Fraud
Fraud
Unclean Hands
Unclean Hands
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
Картинки из презентации «RAND in the Courts: Legal Theories for RAND and an Update on Strategies and Approaches Being Used» к уроку английского языка на тему «Курсы английского»

Автор: jliang. Чтобы познакомиться с картинкой полного размера, нажмите на её эскиз. Чтобы можно было использовать все картинки для урока английского языка, скачайте бесплатно презентацию «RAND in the Courts: Legal Theories for RAND and an Update on Strategies and Approaches Being Used.ppt» со всеми картинками в zip-архиве размером 1069 КБ.

RAND in the Courts: Legal Theories for RAND and an Update on Strategies and Approaches Being Used

содержание презентации «RAND in the Courts: Legal Theories for RAND and an Update on Strategies and Approaches Being Used.ppt»
Сл Текст Сл Текст
1RAND in the Courts: Legal Theories for 20implementing the standards in its products
RAND and an Update on Strategies and and, more importantly, (2) make clear that
Approaches Being Used by Eric Lamison. Microsoft relied upon Motorola’s RAND
2Venues Where RAND Issues Are assurance when it began selling the
Presented. Claims / Defenses in U.S. accused products. RAND IN THE COURTS. ?
District Courts ITC Defenses ITC venue 20.
limits the theories that are viable for 21Equitable Estoppel – Reliance Issues.
Respondents. See, e.g., Microsoft v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., 849
Motorola ITC Initial Determination, F. Supp. 2d 925 (N.D. Cal. 2012). “it is
337-TA-752 (Yet another reason why ITC may reasonable to infer reliance by the IEEE
remain popular for certain patentees.) based on the IEEE’s policies requiring
Claims / Defenses in State Courts Claims disclosure and requiring it to obtain
are typically based on state law. assurances regarding any patents relevant
Governmental Body Investigations (FTC, to proposed standards before adopting
European Commission) Foreign Courts, e.g. them.” Notes that requirement to provide
Mannheim Court, Germany. RAND IN THE assurances on a FRAND basis necessarily
COURTS. ? 2. anticipates reliance on those commitments,
3RAND Based Claims / Defenses. otherwise the assurances would be
Declaratory Judgment Actions Breach of meaningless. “[Adoption of] the standards
Contract Promissory Estoppel Equitable in question is sufficient to infer
Estoppel Waiver Fraud Unclean Hands reliance on the propriety of the
Antitrust Claims / Patent Misuse Unfair standards-setting process itself.”. RAND
Business Practices. RAND IN THE COURTS. ? IN THE COURTS. ? 21.
3. 22Equitable Estoppel. Who Adjudicates?
4Declaratory Judgment Actions. 35 Equitable estoppel is a “matter committed
U.S.C. § 2201 “In a case of actual to the sound discretion of the trial
controversy within its jurisdiction . . . judge.” A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides
any court of the United States, upon the Const. “Co., 960 F.2d 1020, 1028 (Fed.
filing of an appropriate pleading, may Cir. 1992). When a trial involves
declare the rights and other legal questions that require answers by both
relations of any interested party seeking judge and jury, the jury questions should
such declaration, whether or not further be decided first, however the judge
relief is or could be sought” Declaratory retains discretion to take into
Judgment claimant in a patent case must consideration alternative factors such as
meet case-or-controversy requirements as the court’s docket and hardships to each
set forth in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, party. Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover,
Inc.: “Basically, the question in each 359 U.S. 500, 510 (1959). Burden of Proof
case is whether the facts alleged, under Absent special circumstances, such as
all the circumstances, show that there is fraud or intentional misconduct, a party
a [1] substantial controversy, [2] between asserting equitable estoppel must prove
parties having adverse legal interests, each factor by a preponderance of
[3] of sufficient immediacy and reality to evidence. A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L.
warrant the issuance of a declaratory Chaides Const. Co., 960 F.2d 1020, 1046
judgment.” MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, (Fed. Cir. 1992). RAND IN THE COURTS. ?
Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007). RAND IN THE 22.
COURTS. ? 4. 23Waiver. Waiver can be asserted as a
5Declaratory Judgment Actions. Who defense, but has been rejected as an
Adjudicates? The Declaratory Judgment Act affirmative claim. Implied waiver has been
specifically preserves the right to jury typically used for arguing that patentee
trial for both parties. Burden of Proof failed to comply with duty of disclosure
Party seeking a declaratory judgment has to SSO Qualcomm v. Broadcom, 548 F.3d
the burden of establishing the existence 1004,1012-18 (Fed. Cir. 2008) One may try
of an actual case or controversy. to argue that an express commitment to
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 license on RAND terms is: (a) express
U.S. 118, 127 (2007). Plaintiff has burden waiver through intentional relinquishment
to establish by a preponderance of the of right to seek non-RAND royalties; or
evidence. Shell Oil Co. v. Amoco Co., 970 (b) implied waiver through conduct
F.2d 885, 887 (Fed. Cir. 1992). RAND IN inconsistent with an intent to enforce
THE COURTS. ? 5. rights as to include a reasonable belief
6Declaratory Judgment Regarding Amount that such right has been relinquished.
of Reasonable Royalty. Realtek RAND IN THE COURTS. ? 23.
Semiconductor Corp. v. LSI Corp., 2012 WL 24Waiver. Who Adjudicates? In patent
4845628 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2012) (Order cases, waiver appears to be an equitable
denying motion to dismiss declaratory defense for determination by the judge,
judgment claim) Realtek sought a although advisory jury verdict may be
declaratory judgment: That Defendants have utilized. Qualcomm v. Broadcom, 548 F.3d
not offered license terms consistent with 1004, 1012-18 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Burden of
SSO policy and declarations; Setting forth Proof Waiver must be proved by clear and
RAND terms and conditions for a license, convincing evidence. Qualcomm v. Broadcom,
including royalty rate; and That the 548 F.3d 1004, 1016, 1018 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
alleged “essential” patents are Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.,
unenforceable as to Realtek given 645 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011). RAND
Defendants’ refusal to offer a license on IN THE COURTS. ? 24.
RAND terms Defendants moved to dismiss the 25Fraud. A misrepresentation,
declaratory judgment count as duplicative concealment, or nondisclosure in the face
of other claims, stating it sought same of a duty to disclose Knowledge of falsity
relief and added no new dimension or Intent to defraud or induce reliance
theory. Court denied motion, finding Sufficient that patentee intended its
controversy based on patent infringement statements or silence to be communicated
claims. “the determination of a reasonable to SSO members Justifiable reliance
royalty is part of a live controversy Reliance found if defendant designed
between the parties over defendants’ products based on the standard Damages
claims of patent infringement, which is Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., 849
independent of whether defendants breached F. Supp. 2d 925, 933-34 (N.D. Cal. 2012).
the alleged contract.”. RAND IN THE RAND IN THE COURTS. ? 25.
COURTS. ? 6. 26Fraud – Developing Cases. Barnes &
7Declaratory Judgment of Non-RAND Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., 849 F. Supp. 2d
Offer. Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc. 925, 942 (N.D. Cal. 2012) B&N sought
(W.D. Wash. June 1, 2011) The Court found declaratory judgment of non-infringement.
Microsoft’s declaratory judgment claim to LSI counterclaimed for infringement, and
be duplicative of its additional claims, B&N asserted numerous equitable
particularly its claim for breach of affirmative defenses for unenforceability,
contract, because “the relief it was citing non-disclosure of 3G patents during
seeking is the consequence of the same ETSI meetings by LSI and LSI’s
ruling on its other claims, which is an predecessor-in-interest, Lucent. Court
injunction that requires Motorola to make denied motion to strike fraud defense
a RAND offer.” The Court relied on Swartz based on alleged failure to disclose
v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 766 (9th Cir. essential patents. RAND IN THE COURTS. ?
2007) stating “requests for declaratory 26.
judgment orders that merely impose the 27Fraud. Who Adjudicates? Fraud involves
remedies provided for in other claims are questions of fact normally left to a jury.
duplicative and may be dismissed on that Burden of Proof Fraud must be proved by
basis. Therefore the court granted clear and convincing evidence, including
Motorola’s motion to dismiss Microsoft’s in the standard setting context. E.g.,
declaratory judgment cause of action. Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Techs. AG, 318
However, it would appear that contract and F.3d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2003). RAND IN THE
other claims have various elements such as COURTS. ? 27.
damages, that seem unnecessary for a DJ 28Unclean Hands. Patentee’s conduct is
claim. RAND IN THE COURTS. ? 7. inequitable and relates to the subject
8Right to a Jury on Patent Damages. matter of its claims. Barnes & Noble,
Determination of Running Royalty Inc. v. LSI Corp., 849 F. Supp. 2d 925,
Calculation (if ordered negotiations fail) 942 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (denying motion to
Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 2012 WL strike unclean hands defense) Typically
2376664 (N.D. Ill. June 22, 2012) The arises in context of duty to disclose, but
Court stated that, although an order to one can envision that where a plaintiff
pay a royalty in the future certainly demands excessive compensation or an
sounds like an equitable order (a injunction in violation of a RAND
mandatory injunction), alternatively it commitment, unclean hands may be a tenable
may be part of a jury’s verdict on defense. RAND IN THE COURTS. ? 28.
damages. “If past damages are awarded 29Unclean Hands. Who Adjudicates? The
along with future damages either judge, based on the equitable nature of
calculated as a lump sum or as a the defense. Levi Strauss & Co. v.
non-equity running-royalty order, there Shilon, 121 F.3d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir.
would be no occasion to order equitable 1997) (Cited in Barnes & Noble v. LSI)
relief.” Thus a running royalty Burden of Proof Unclean hands must be
calculation may be made by either a judge proven by clear and convincing evidence.
or a jury (citing Telcordia, 612 F.3d Aptix Corp. v. Quickturn Design Sys.,
1365, 1378-89 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). RAND IN Inc., 269 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001). RAND
THE COURTS. ? 8. IN THE COURTS. ? 29.
9Breach of Contract. Agreement between 30Antitrust Claims. Sherman Act § 2 –
patentee and SSO Duty to disclose Unlawful monopolization claim requires:
existence of essential IP Commitment to Monopoly Power, Acquired or maintained
license on RAND terms Breach of the through anticompetitive conduct. Broadcom
Agreement Question whether initial offer Corp. v. Qualcomm, Inc., 501 F.3d 297, 306
or later offers must be RAND Even if (3d. Cir. 2007) What type of conduct is
initial offer need not be RAND, anticompetitive? Failure to disclose. At
unreasonable initial offer may breach least one court has held it essential that
implied covenant of good faith & fair the SSO would not have used the IP but for
dealing. Initial outrageous offer also may the deception. Rambus Inc. v. FTC, 522
be viewed as anticipatory breach by F.3d 456 (D.C. Cir. 2008) Failure to later
patentee. Pros / Cons of engaging in license on FRAND terms. Broadcom Corp. v.
further negotiations if you wish to assert Qualcomm Inc., 501 F.3d 297 (3d Cir.
claim Damages Can be a disputed element if 2007). RAND IN THE COURTS. ? 30.
no non-RAND license fee has been paid. 31Antitrust Claims. Rambus, Inc. v. FTC,
Party asserting RAND may need to be 522 F.3d 456 (D.C. Cir. 2008) Failure to
creative, e.g. rely on legal fees / costs disclose IP rights to SSO did not
Third-party beneficiary status Apple, Inc. necessarily reduce competition because SSO
v. Motorola Mobility, Inc., 2012 WL might have chosen to standardize the IP
3289835 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 10, 2012). RAND IN anyway. Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm, Inc.,
THE COURTS. ? 9. 501 F.3d 297 (3d Cir. 2007) FRAND promise
10Breach of Contract – Agreement. Offer plus later demanding non-FRAND terms could
IP rights policies of the SSO can be be a deception sufficient to violate
considered offers in exchange for ability antitrust law. Misrepresentations of the
to participate in developing standards cost (i.e. licensing cost) of implementing
Acceptance Attending meetings; a standard may confer an unfair advantage
participation in meetings; having and bias the competitive process in favor
proposals considered; joining the SSO, of the defendant. RAND IN THE COURTS. ?
submitting letters of assurance, etc. 31.
Consideration – two theories recently 32Antitrust Claims. Noerr-Pennington
articulated The right to participate in Immunity May immunize patentee from
standards discussions. Having your IP antitrust claim where patentee is
declared essential to compliance with the asserting patent right. See Apple, Inc. v.
standard. Apple, Inc. v. Motorola Motorola Mobility, Inc., 2012 WL 3289835
Mobility, Inc., 2012 WL 3289835 (W.D. Wis. (W.D. Wis. Aug. 10, 2012). Therefore, may
Aug. 10, 2012) Apple, Inc. v. Motorola need to assert some injury beyond
Mobility, Inc., 2012 WL 2376664 (N.D. litigation costs. Id. Can apply to other
Ill., June 22, 2012). RAND IN THE COURTS. types of unfair competition claims. RAND
? 10. IN THE COURTS. ? 32.
11Breach of Contract – Developing Cases. 33Antitrust Claims – Developing Cases.
Apple v. Motorola Mobility (W.D. Wisc.) – Apple, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc.,
case pending Court allowed Apple’s 2012 WL 3289835 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 10, 2012)
counterclaim for breach of contract to Noerr-Pennington doctrine provides
survive summary judgment motion by Motorola immunity. Court stated that
Motorola and awarded Apple summary Apple’s only alleged damages from the
judgment that: contracts existed between abuse of the standards-setting process
Motorola and the SSO; Apple, as potential were costs of litigation arising from
user of the standards at issue, is a third Motorola’s allegedly improper suits
party beneficiary; that Motorola was against it. Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v.
obligated to disclose its patents and LSI Corp., 2012 WL 4845628 (N.D. Cal. Oct.
applications before adoption of standards 10, 2012) Court dismissed the claim due to
incorporating its patents; and Motorola the fact that Realtek focused on the harm
failed to timely disclose patents and to them rather than the competitive harm,
applications. Agreement: All members shall and harm to the rest of the marketplace.
use reasonable means to disclose IP rights RAND IN THE COURTS. ? 33.
that might have become essential to 34Antitrust Claims – FTC. Civil
standards being considered before issuance antitrust actions to prohibit unfair or
Issues for trial: Whether Motorola deceptive acts or practices affecting
breached the agreement by (a) failing to commerce (DOJ handles criminal cases).
make bona fide efforts to disclose in a Remedies potentially available (Rambus,
timely manner; and (b) failing to offer a 2006 WL 2330117, FTC Commission Remedy
license on RAND terms Damages attributable Op., Feb. 2, 2007) Injunction against
to each asserted breach. RAND IN THE future anticompetitive conduct Compulsory
COURTS. ? 11. license at reasonably royalty rates Free
12Breach of Contract – Developing Cases. compulsory license. RAND IN THE COURTS. ?
Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc. (W.D. 34.
Wash. June 1, 2011) Microsoft raised a 35Antitrust Claims – FTC. Concerned
breach of contract claim against Motorola about the issue of abuse of SEPs In June,
and the Court found that Motorola’s held a workshop on standard-setting and
Letters of Assurances to the IEEE created SEPs. Sought public comments on the issue
an enforceable contract and that Microsoft through August 5th. Earlier this month,
was a third party beneficiary. The Court DOJ’s chief economist gave speech at
found there to be no legal authority National Academy of Sciences in D.C.
requiring negotiation as a precondition to explaining policy choices SSOs could
a breach of contract claim based on RAND implement that would help competition.
licensing and denied Motorola’s motion to RAND IN THE COURTS. ? 35.
dismiss the claim. RAND IN THE COURTS. ? 36Antitrust Claims – European
12. Commission. Pending European Commission
13Breach of Contract – Developing Cases. antitrust investigation regarding seeking
Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. LSI Corp. of injunctive relief for FRAND-obligated
& Agere Systems, Inc., 2012 WL 4845628 patents. Jan. 31, 2012: formal
(N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2012). After investigation opened regarding Samsung
defendants sued Realtek in ITC, Realtek April 3, 2012: formal investigation opened
filed NDCA complaint Realtek alleges that regarding Motorola Mobility Commission
defendants breached agreement to comply examines whether there is an abuse of a
with policies of IEEE-SA and commitment to dominant position prohibited by Article
offer RAND licenses for patents essential 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of
to 802.11 Judge Whyte denied motion to the EU. Apple, as defendant, has very
dismiss, citing to WA and WI cases: Didn’t recently (Oct. 19, 2012) asked the German
decide if initial offer must be RAND or court to stay its patent litigation with
just meet good faith/fair dealing Samsung pending the EC investigation. RAND
Intriguing: “The court is troubled by IN THE COURTS. ? 36.
defendants’ decision to choose, in the 37Antitrust Claims – European
first instance, a forum for enforcing Commission. Appears to be very motivated
their patent rights in which money damages to solve the SEP abuse issue “The fact
are unavailable and the only relief is that we have received many complaints
injunctive in nature. Since defendants related to standards-essential patents
have done so, there appears even less also shows that there is a great need for
reason for this court to wait before guidance. I want to tell you that I am
determining the reasonable royalty rate, willing to provide clarity to the market
which is all defendants are initially through our enforcement. . . . I expect
entitled to. Thus, the motion to dismiss the leading companies in the sector not to
Realtek’s breach of contract claim is misuse their intellectual property rights
denied. RAND IN THE COURTS. ? 13. . . .” – EC Vice President Almunia
14Breach of Contract. Who Adjudicates? http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEEC
Judge determines meaning of the agreement -12-629_en.htm. RAND IN THE COURTS. ? 37.
or policy. Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. 38Patent Misuse. Apple, Inc. v. Motorola
Rambus Inc., 645 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. Mobility, Inc., 2012 WL 3289835 (W.D. Wis.
2011). Jury determines whether the Aug. 10, 2012). Apple filed a claim for
patentee breached the agreement (unless declaratory judgment that Motorola misused
parties waive jury trial). Microsoft Corp. its patents by promising to offer fair
v. Motorola, Inc., 2012 WL 2030098 (W.D. licenses and then failing to do so. The
Wash. June 6, 2012). The RAND amount can Court determined that it was not clear
be a jury question. Id. Burden of Proof from Apple’s complaint whether this claim
Plaintiff bears burden of proof by the was based on contract theory or antitrust
applicable state law standard, which is theory. If based on antitrust theory, the
usually a preponderance of the evidence. Court determined that this claim would not
See e.g. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings v. survive as Motorola is immune under the
Metabolite Laboratories, Inc., 599 F.3d Noerr-Pennington doctrine. However, the
1277, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2010). RAND IN THE Court stated that if the claim is based on
COURTS. ? 14. contract theory it may proceed. RAND IN
15Promissory Estoppel – Elements. A THE COURTS. ? 38.
promise; The intent to induce action or 39Patent Misuse. Who Adjudicates? The
forbearance based on the promise; judge, based on the equitable nature of
Reasonable reliance on the promise; Injury the defense. C.R. Bard. Inc. v. M3 Sys.,
Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 2012 WL Inc., 157 F.3d 1340, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
2030098 (W.D. Wash. June 6, 2012). RAND IN Burden of Proof Patent misuse must be
THE COURTS. ? 15. proven by clear and convincing evidence.
16Promissory Estoppel – Developing C.R. Bard. Inc. v. M3 Sys., Inc., 157 F.3d
Cases. Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 1340, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1998). RAND IN THE
2012 WL 2030098 (W.D. Wash. June 6, 2012) COURTS. ? 39.
Microsoft alleged that Motorola made a 40Unfair Competition. Under California
clear and definite promise through their Business and Professions Code § 17200,
commitments to the IEEE and ITU. Microsoft unfair competition refers to conduct that
claims that they developed and marketed threatens an incipient violation of an
produces in reliance on Motorola’s antitrust law, or that violates the policy
promise, and they have been harmed as a or spirit of one of those laws because its
result of its reasonable reliance. effects are comparable to a violation of
Motorola filed a motion to dismiss stating the law, or that otherwise significantly
that Microsoft had alleged a valid threatens or harms competition. Cel-Tech
contract and the doctrine of promissory Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles
estoppel was not designed to give a party Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 973
a “second bite at the apple in event it P.2d 527 (1999). RAND IN THE COURTS. ? 40.
fails to prove a breach of contract.” The 41Unfair Competition — Developing Cases.
Court determined that at an early stage in RAND IN THE COURTS. Realtek Semiconductor
the case a plaintiff may plead alternative Corp. v. LSI Corp., 2012 WL 4845628 (N.D.
causes of action even if inconsistent, and Cal. Oct. 10, 2012) Plaintiffs allege
denied Motorola’s motion. RAND IN THE competitive harm under § 17200 stating
COURTS. ? 16. that due to Defendant’s actions the entire
17Promissory Estoppel – Developing WLAN product market has suffered injury.
Cases. Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. LSI The Court determined that Realtek’s
Corp., 2012 WL 4845628 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, allegations do not adequately suggest
2012) Patent-holder submitted Letters of competitors will be harmed. Realtek only
Assurances to IEEE stating it was prepared focused on the alleged impact on
to grant a license to an unrestricted themselves rather than the market as a
number of applicants on RAND terms. whole. Apple, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility,
Realtek claimed that it developed and sold Inc., 2012 WL 3289835 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 10,
standard-compliant products in reliance on 2012) Apple alleged unfair competition and
this commitment to license. The court business practices, arguing that Motorola
denied LSI’s motion to dismiss, stating engaged in a pattern of unfair, deceptive
that Realtek’s complaint alleged enough and anticompetitive conduct by failing to
information for the claim to survive. RAND disclose ownership of patents it now
IN THE COURTS. ? 17. claims to be essential. Noerr-Pennington
18Promissory Estoppel. Who Adjudicates? provided immunity because Apple only
Some courts have found promissory estoppel alleged harm in the form of litigation
to be an issue properly resolved by the costs. ? 41.
Court. Merex A.G. v. Fairchild Weston 42RAND IN THE COURTS. Case. DJ.
Sys., Inc., 29 F.3d 821, 826 (2d Cir. Contract. Promissory Estoppel. Equitable
1994) Others have found the reasonable Estoppel. Waiver. Fraud. Unclean Hands.
reliance element to be an issue of fact Antitrust/Misuse. Pending. Pending.
for the jury. Hendricks v. Smartvideo Dismissed. Precluded. Rejected. Rejected.
Techs., Inc., 511 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (M.D. Rejected. Dismissed. Pending. Pending.
Fla. 2007) In re JPMorgan Chase Mortg. Dismissed as affirmative claim. Pending.
Modification Litig., 2012 WL 3059377 (D. Pending. Pending. Dismissed. Pending.
Mass. July 27, 2012) Burden of Proof Proof Pending. Pending. Pending. Rejected.
of promissory estoppel may require clear Rejected. Asserted. Affirmed by Fed. Cir.
and convincing evidence. W. Indies Asserted. Apple v. Motorola (W.D. Wis.).
Network-I, LLC v. Nortel Networks, (CALA) Apple v. Motorola (ITC). Microsoft v.
Inc., 243 F. App’x 482, 485 (11th Cir. Motorola (ITC). Microsoft v. Motorola
2007) Escarra v. Regions Bank, 353 F. (W.D. Wash.). Realtek v. LSI (N.D. Cal.).
App’x 401, 403 (11th Cir. 2009). RAND IN Barnes & Nobles v. LSI (N.D. Cal.).
THE COURTS. ? 18. Hynix v. Rambus (Fed. Cir.). Qualcomm v.
19Equitable Estoppel. Statement/conduct Broadcom (Fed. Cir.). ? 42.
of patentee communicates something in a 43KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP. Eric Lamison
misleading way; Accused infringer must is the founding partner for the
show it substantially relied on the intellectual property trial practice group
misleading conduct in taking some action; for Kirkland's San Francisco office.
Accused infringer must establish it would eric.lamison@kirkland.com (415) 439-1496.
be materially prejudiced if patentee is Harper Batts is a partner for the
now permitted to proceed. A.C. Aukerman intellectual property trial practice group
Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d for Kirkland's Palo Alto office.
1020 (Fed. Cir. 1992). RAND IN THE COURTS. harper.batts@kirkland.com (650) 859-7001.
? 19. Reza Dokhanchy is an intellectual property
20Equitable Estoppel – Reliance Issues. litigation associate in Kirkland's San
Microsoft v. Motorola, Initial Francisco office.
Determination (ITC), 337-TA-752 ALJ found reza.dokhanchy@kirkland.com (415)
against Microsoft’s equitable estoppel 439-1469. Claire Thompson is an
claim because Microsoft purportedly did intellectual property litigation associate
not meet the reliance prong. ALJ opined in Kirkland's San Francisco office.
that Microsoft did not (1) explain what claire.thompson@kirkland.com (415)
their “costs” were when they invested in 439-1492. ? 43.
RAND in the Courts: Legal Theories for RAND and an Update on Strategies and Approaches Being Used.ppt
http://900igr.net/kartinka/anglijskij-jazyk/rand-in-the-courts-legal-theories-for-rand-and-an-update-on-strategies-and-approaches-being-used-232038.html
cсылка на страницу

RAND in the Courts: Legal Theories for RAND and an Update on Strategies and Approaches Being Used

другие презентации на тему «RAND in the Courts: Legal Theories for RAND and an Update on Strategies and Approaches Being Used»

«Женщина the woman» - От нашего ребра нам не ждать добра; The wife is the key to the house. Холостому помогай боже, а женатому хозяйка поможет. A good wife makes a good husband. Человек = мужчина. Пути пополнения лексической группы «женщина» в английском языке. Chicken’s mind- Куриные мозги. Оценочная структура лексической единицы “женщина”.

«English for you» - Викторины Задания Игры Игровые упражнения Ты можешь выбрать уровень сложности. Ты научишься правильно строить предложение. Что ты научишься делать и узнаешь. Артикль Множественное число Предлоги. EuroTalk. Может ли компьютер заменить учителя? Ты убедишься насколько интересным и захватывающим может быть обучение языку.

«The animals» - KANGAROO. REINDEER. GORILLA. LION. SEA-HORSE. LIZARD. The animals which live in the rainforest and tropics. SEAL. BOBCAT. BISON. GIRAFFE. TIGER. HIPPO. DOLPHIN. The animals which live in the forest. BEAR. STARFISH. FLAMINGO. SCORPIO. FOX. The ANIMALS of our planet. ELEPHANT. KOALA. PARROT. GRIFFIN. CAMEL.

«The green movement» - It became the first African who has headed this organization. Several active workers managed to steal up on a raft to a platform and to chain themselves to it. Management of each such branch in which head there is a chief executive, carries out national board. The main objective — to achieve the decision of global environmental problems, including by attraction to them of attention of the public and the authorities.

«The english-speaking countries» - Australia. The English-speaking countries. Great Britain. Scotland. Disneyland. USA.

«Школа английского» - В мире. ИЗУЧАЙ! Специально разработанные программы. Академическая база EF. Фонд Общественного Мнения «Владение иностранными языками» в России. ПОЛУЧАЙ СЕРТИФИКАТ! Исследования об уровне владения английским языком в России и в мире. Ступени реализации проекта языкового обучения: Новаторский подход в обучении английскому языку.

Курсы английского

25 презентаций о курсах английского
Урок

Английский язык

29 тем
Картинки
900igr.net > Презентации по английскому языку > Курсы английского > RAND in the Courts: Legal Theories for RAND and an Update on Strategies and Approaches Being Used