X

Reset Password

Username:

Change Password

Old Password:
New Password:
We have completed your request.

High-Tech Law & Litigation Blog

  • 20
  • February
  • 2018

Author:

Share on:

Tech Issues Dominate at Confirmation Hearing for Four FTC Nominees

At a February 14, 2018, confirmation hearing on President Trump’s nominees to the Federal Trade Commission before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Senators asked the nominees how, if confirmed, they would regulate technology companies, address data security issues exposed by the Equifax breach, and address net neutrality. While making few firm commitments other than to study the issues, the nominees agreed that the FTC should use its authority and resources to protect consumers from abuses by large firms, especially in light of evolving concerns over data privacy and aggregation.

Read More
  • 12
  • February
  • 2018

Authors:

Share on:

Update: District Court Sets Aside $300,000 Apple Sanction

Last week, we wrote that Apple found itself in hot water when a federal magistrate imposed a $300,000 sanction against the company for failing to meet a Rule 45 (third-party subpoena) document production deadline in the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) case against Qualcomm Inc. In the sanction order, the magistrate cited a similar sanction against Samsung for untimely document production to Apple in an unrelated suit, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2012) [ECF No. 880].

Read More
  • 09
  • February
  • 2018

Authors:

Share on:

Apple Hit with $300,000 Sanction for Missing Document Production Deadline

The Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) case against Qualcomm Inc. — alleging Qualcomm unlawfully maintained a monopoly in baseband processors — is in the midst of a contentious discovery period that has each side scrambling to subpoena documents from various third parties. Apple Inc. is one such third party and is now in hot water for missing a document production deadline, presumably by 12 days. In response, the Northern District of California magistrate judge sent a message to other third parties by sanctioning Apple to the tune of $300,000 ($25,000 per day). Tech companies may view the sanctions as a blessing or a curse, depending on what end of a subpoena they find themselves on.

Read More
  • 30
  • November
  • 2017

Authors:

Share on:

IP Implementers Beware: Assistant Attorney General Delrahim Stakes Out New Balance in Intersection of Innovation and Antitrust Policy

In the few short weeks since his Senate confirmation in late September, new DOJ Antitrust Division boss Makan Delrahim has wasted no time staking out the Division’s position regarding certain key areas of antitrust enforcement and regulation. One of those areas is innovation policy and, specifically, the intersection of antitrust law and intellectual property in the context of standard-setting organizations (“SSOs”) and policies regarding the licensing of standard-essential patents (“SEPs”). Assistant Attorney General Delrahim’s comments on this subject are especially interesting given that he is the first registered patent lawyer to helm the DOJ Antitrust Division. In a speech at the University of Southern California’s Gould School of Law earlier this month, Assistant Attorney General Delrahim made clear his belief that the application of competition policy and enforcement has been too heavy-handed in the SSO and SEP arena and that the scale has been tipped for too long in favor of implementers.

Read More
  • 21
  • November
  • 2017

Authors:

Share on:

Suggestion and Innuendo Held Insufficient To Create Federal Jurisdiction in Qualcomm Patent Licensing Litigation

Qualcomm scored a victory in one of the many battles in its war with Apple and others surrounding licensing practices for baseband processors. In July, Apple — which is suing Qualcomm for allegedly overcharging for licenses to use its chip patents and withholding over a billion dollars in royalties — amended a pending complaint to add claims relating to an additional nine patents-in-suit. In August, Qualcomm moved to dismiss the additional claims relating to those nine patents on the grounds that the court lacked declaratory judgment jurisdiction to hear the claims. This month, the Southern District of California dismissed the additional claims, agreeing with Qualcomm that jurisdiction did not exist.

Read More

Dates

Subscribe for Updates

Receive e-mail updates from the V&E High-Tech Blog team

Follow Us On Linkedin

Contributors

Jason A. Levine

Jason A. Levine Partner

Jennifer C. Chen

Jennifer C. Chen Partner

Devika Kornbacher

Devika Kornbacher Partner

Danny Tobey

Danny Tobey Partner

William R. Vigdor

William R. Vigdor Partner

Marc A. Fuller

Marc A. Fuller Counsel

John Andren

John Andren Associate

Thomas W. Bohnett

Thomas W. Bohnett Associate

Megan Coker

Megan Coker Associate

Caroline Colpoys

Caroline Colpoys

Trey Hebert

Trey Hebert Associate

Keeney, Jeremy C.

Jeremy C. Keeney Associate

Howard Lithaw Lim Associate

Kimberly R. McCoy

Kimberly R. McCoy Senior Associate

Elizabeth Krabill McIntyre

Elizabeth Krabill McIntyre Senior Associate

David C. Smith

David C. Smith Senior Associate

Janice Ta

Janice Ta Senior Associate

Margaret D. Terwey

Margaret Dunlay Terwey Associate

Ryan B. Will

Ryan Will Associate

Siho (Scott) Yoo

Siho (Scott) Yoo Senior Associate