About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« USPTO Initiates Fast-Track Appeals Pilot Program | Main | IBSA Institut Biochimique, S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020) »

August 12, 2020

Comments

Link to the decision itself?

Here it is:

https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/3/19-16122/009132019519.pdf

"Qualcomm has a "no license, no chips" policy to enforce these arrangements, refusing to sell the OEMs who do not license their SEP portfolios." Unclear sentence, Kevin. Does "them" refer to OEMs (in which case the plural pronoun makes sense, but what does Qualcomm care if OEMs offer licenses to their own SEPs?), or does "them" refer to Qualcomm (in which case the plural pronoun doesn't make sense, but presumably Qualcomm doesn't sell its chips, or allow sales of licensed chips, to OEMs that don't license Qualcomm's SEPs)?

ty

Dear Atari: as I understand the program, the OEM needs to purchase a license for the relevant Qualcomm patent portfolio (i.e., cellular SEP license for chips used in cell phones, etc.) in order to purchase the chips and Qualcomm refuses to cell the chips without a license. This relates to the patent exhaustion consequences of the Quanta Computer decision, because should an OEM buy chips without a license Qualcomm would not be able to collect royalties on the license from the end purchaser because the patent rights would have expired upon sale to the OEM.

Sorry for the confusion

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

September 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30