eNews

On May 21, 2019, District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the Northern District of California ruled that Qualcomm, Inc.’s standard essential patent licensing practices were anticompetitive.[1] FTC v. Qualcomm, No. 5:17-cv-002200, 2019 U.S. Dist. WL 2206013 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2019). Judge Koh found that Qualcomm possessed monopoly power in the markets for CDMA and premium-LTE modem chips. Qualcomm in turn used this monopoly power to (a) force SEP licensees into anticompetitive licensing agreements, (b) refuse to license its SEPs to rival modem chip manufacturers, (c) extract supra-competitive royalties from customers, (d) push competitors out of the market, and (e) secure exclusive deals. This anticompetitive behavior harmed original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”) and Qualcomm’s rivals in the CDMA and premium-LTE modem chip markets. Indeed, Qualcomm had required OEMs to sign a patent license agreement before they could purchase their model chips (i.e., the no license/no chip policy), a practice which the court deemed anticompetitive. Read more

In July 2018, Plaintiffs Wi-LAN Inc., Wi-LAN USA, Inc., and Wi-LAN Labs, Inc., (collectively, “Wi-LAN”) brought a patent infringement action against Defendants LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc., (collectively, “LG”) alleging that LG’s wireless communications products that are compliant with the 3rd Generation Partnership Project 4G LTE standard (3GPP LTE) directly infringed four of Wi-LAN’s patents. Wi-Lan Inc., et al. v. LG Elecs., Inc., et al., --- F. Supp. 3d ----, No. 18-cv-01577-H-BGS, 2019 WL 1586761, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2019). Wi-Lan was once a company that engaged in research and development of various wireless technologies but now primarily focuses on licensing patent portfolios owned by others. LG, in response, asserted various counterclaims relating to the unenforceability of Wi-LAN’s purported standard-essential patents and, particularly, claims for (1) monopolization and attempted monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §2; (2) unfair business practices under Section 17200 of the California Business and Profession Code, Cal. Bus. & Prof. § 17200; and (3) declaratory judgment of unenforceability of U.S. Patent No. 8,867,351 (“the ’351 patent”) under a theory of infectious unenforceability. Read more

On March 8, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in favor of a class of current and former NCAA Division I basketball and FBS football players who brought a multidistrict class action antitrust suit against the NCAA and eleven of its member conferences challenging the NCAA’s rules capping the amount of compensation that student-athletes can receive in exchange for their athletic services. In re NCAA Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust Litig., 375 F. Supp. 3d 1058, 1062 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (the “Grant-in-Aid Litigation”). Read more

Save the date for the “Commercial RES” program later this year: Thursday, September 26, 2019 in Los Angeles! Read more

Save the date for the “Residential RES” program later this year: Friday, September 13, 2019 in San Diego. Read more

OVERVIEW. The 2020 Real Property Law Section’s 39th Annual Spring Conference (formerly the RPLS Annual Retreat) is California’s preeminent statewide conference for real estate attorneys. During the Spring Conference, real estate attorneys and professionals attend educational programming and networking events. These educational courses feature panel discussions on all aspects of real estate law from “nuts and bolts” to “year in review” and ethics as well as more advanced sessions on specific real estate practice areas (e.g., land use, leasing, purchase and sale, joint ventures, finance, etc.). The Spring Conference also allows for more general discussions on important cutting-edge legal topics. Read more

On June 20 and 21, I had the honor of attending the California Lawyers Association Board of Directors meeting in San Diego on behalf of the Real Property Law Section. For one and a half days, the section leaders of the CLA met to discuss and approve the various issues that face our state-wide organization. What an impressive group! Read more

On June 20 and 21, I attended the California Lawyers Association Board of Directors meeting in San Diego. For one and a half days, the section leaders of the CLA met to discuss and approve the various issues that face our state-wide organization. What an impressive group! Read more

Corporations: Longview Internat., Inc. v. Stirling (2019) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2019 WL 2314881: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order denying defendant's motion to expunge a judgment lien on real property. Although the plaintiff/judgment creditor corporation was suspended when the lien was created, the recording of the abstract of judgment was a procedural act that was retroactively validated once a suspended corporation's powers were reinstated. (C.A. 6th, May 31, 2019.) Read more

Ross A. Epstein is a partner and the Chair of the Intellectual Property Group at CKR Law LLP. Mr. Epstein provides legal counsel to a wide variety of clients including U.S., European and Asian multinational corporations; universities and other research institutions; small businesses and start-up companies; and sole inventors and entrepreneurs in high tech, life sciences as well as other industries. Mr. Epstein has a unique affinity for the entrepreneurial client due to his hands-on experience in business as the founder, President, and CEO of BCH Communications. Read more