Patent "babble" from Forbes
In a post from Forbes titled The U.S. Supreme Court Hopes To Limit Patent Trolling one has the text
In one case Taiwan’s GSPT, the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) and which holds just under 19000 patents went after LG Corporation (Korea) in the U.S. District Court for The Eastern District of Texas claiming that LG had infringed on its backlight module patents used in televisions and monitors. Ultimately the court ruled that not only did LG not infringe but that ITRI does not have an industry in the United States relating to articles allegedly protected by the patents in question and thereby limiting the jurisdiction of the patent. Further it would seem that the recent Supreme Court ruling makes it more difficult for massive nationalized trolls like ITRI to assure that the patents they acquire will hold up in potential future cases.
One is troubled by the sentence Ultimately the court ruled that not only did LG not infringe but that ITRI does not have an industry in the United States relating to articles allegedly protected by the patents in question and thereby limiting the jurisdiction of the patent.
In fact, the case in question related to an ITC action, the appeal of which the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handled in June 2014; from Marketwatch on June 23, 2014:
Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed LG Electronics' complete victory at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in Certain Devices for Improving Uniformity Used in a Backlight Module and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (337-TA-805).
Representing another blow to the Taiwanese entity, the Federal Circuit affirmed that LG Electronics products do not infringe the claims of ITRI's asserted patent and that ITRI did not have the necessary domestic industry standing required to bring an action before the ITC.
Inattention to facts by Forbes. The matter of --domestic industry standing -- is relevant to an ITC action, but NOT to a district court case in ED Texas.
In one case Taiwan’s GSPT, the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) and which holds just under 19000 patents went after LG Corporation (Korea) in the U.S. District Court for The Eastern District of Texas claiming that LG had infringed on its backlight module patents used in televisions and monitors. Ultimately the court ruled that not only did LG not infringe but that ITRI does not have an industry in the United States relating to articles allegedly protected by the patents in question and thereby limiting the jurisdiction of the patent. Further it would seem that the recent Supreme Court ruling makes it more difficult for massive nationalized trolls like ITRI to assure that the patents they acquire will hold up in potential future cases.
One is troubled by the sentence Ultimately the court ruled that not only did LG not infringe but that ITRI does not have an industry in the United States relating to articles allegedly protected by the patents in question and thereby limiting the jurisdiction of the patent.
In fact, the case in question related to an ITC action, the appeal of which the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handled in June 2014; from Marketwatch on June 23, 2014:
Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed LG Electronics' complete victory at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in Certain Devices for Improving Uniformity Used in a Backlight Module and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (337-TA-805).
Representing another blow to the Taiwanese entity, the Federal Circuit affirmed that LG Electronics products do not infringe the claims of ITRI's asserted patent and that ITRI did not have the necessary domestic industry standing required to bring an action before the ITC.
Inattention to facts by Forbes. The matter of --domestic industry standing -- is relevant to an ITC action, but NOT to a district court case in ED Texas.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 1:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home