The IPKat is grateful to the eagle-eyed FRAND watcher Richard Vary for this guest contribution:
Readers will remember the news of Christmas 2017: Judge Selna in the Central District of California determined the FRAND royalties that TCL should pay to Ericsson. The decision attracted comment because the rates were very much lower than the findings that Mr Justice Birss had made in relation to Ericsson's portfolio in Unwired Planet, despite similar evidence
Today the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit overturned that decision.
Ericsson appealed on two grounds: that it had been deprived of its right to a jury trial, and that Judge Selna's calculations contained many errors. Happily for Ericsson, but disappointingly for followers of FRAND, the CAFC agreed with the first of those grounds. That means it did not need to look at the second.
The right to a trial by jury arises from the Seventh Amendment to the US constitution. This provides that “[i]n Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be pre-served . . . .” . If the Claimant would have had a right to a jury trial in the common law courts of England (before the courts of law and equity were merged) then he shall have that right in the US.
The issue was whether the relief granted by Judge Selna was legal or equitable. According to a case called Dairy Queen v Wood where there were mixed legal claims and equitable claims arising from the same facts, the legal claims must first be decided by a jury. Judge Selna had determined that all remaining claims were equitable, so could be determined by a bench trial. The CAFC disagreed with Judge Selna in respect of the past payments that TCL must make to Ericsson, finding that although in form these were an element of the injunctive relief, in substance these were damages for patent infringement. Those are a legal remedy, and as such were a matter for the jury.
As a consequence, Judge Selna's decisions in relation to Ericsson's offers, and his determination of both past and prospective royalties, were vacated. The case is remanded for a jury trial.
Readers will remember the news of Christmas 2017: Judge Selna in the Central District of California determined the FRAND royalties that TCL should pay to Ericsson. The decision attracted comment because the rates were very much lower than the findings that Mr Justice Birss had made in relation to Ericsson's portfolio in Unwired Planet, despite similar evidence
Today the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit overturned that decision.
Ericsson appealed on two grounds: that it had been deprived of its right to a jury trial, and that Judge Selna's calculations contained many errors. Happily for Ericsson, but disappointingly for followers of FRAND, the CAFC agreed with the first of those grounds. That means it did not need to look at the second.
The right to a trial by jury arises from the Seventh Amendment to the US constitution. This provides that “[i]n Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be pre-served . . . .” . If the Claimant would have had a right to a jury trial in the common law courts of England (before the courts of law and equity were merged) then he shall have that right in the US.
The issue was whether the relief granted by Judge Selna was legal or equitable. According to a case called Dairy Queen v Wood where there were mixed legal claims and equitable claims arising from the same facts, the legal claims must first be decided by a jury. Judge Selna had determined that all remaining claims were equitable, so could be determined by a bench trial. The CAFC disagreed with Judge Selna in respect of the past payments that TCL must make to Ericsson, finding that although in form these were an element of the injunctive relief, in substance these were damages for patent infringement. Those are a legal remedy, and as such were a matter for the jury.
As a consequence, Judge Selna's decisions in relation to Ericsson's offers, and his determination of both past and prospective royalties, were vacated. The case is remanded for a jury trial.
Justice Kat will see you now
TCL v Ericsson overturned on appeal in US; will go to jury trial
Reviewed by Alex Woolgar
on
Friday, December 06, 2019
Rating:
Reviewed by Alex Woolgar
on
Friday, December 06, 2019
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn ![[Guest post] Can AI be considered a PHOSITA? Policy debates in the US and the EU](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggxDO6mW5r4n3-06Af5ckmIaMIhzgPJBoDP8AUsSYXY2zajUQt1ObGVn_GhCgidbG_YDVnybQuJ5XoAjjBG9Ws2xJWDQHNPMrLkn526SWIG371X_Kjt1E8tJmn8Ae_20Phyphenhyphen09JeuUOhhTR3aZE9lMRQlqHGQGcAWGxlo91rrKcLk0AfUjWCvw6RQ/s72-c/Two-cats-eating.jpg)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html