The US District Court for the Northern District of California dismisses with leave to amend antitrust claims against high-tech producers employing the android operating system (Cascades Computer Innovation / RPX)

Can An “Anti-Patent Troll” Be a Monopsonist or a Section 1 Conspirator?* A recent interesting case suggests that “anti-patent trolls” may in theory face antitrust liability. In Cascades Computer Innovation LLC v. RPX Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10526 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2013), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers dismissed – with leave to amend – Cascades’ antitrust complaint against RPX, Dell, HTC, LG Electronics, Motorola Mobility, and Samsung. Cascades is a non-practicing entity (“NPE”), accused by the defendants of being a “patent troll.” It holds the rights to a portfolio of patents relating to technology that optimizes the use of the Android mobile phone/tablet operating system. Dell, HTC, LG, Motorola Mobility, and Samsung (the manufacturing defendants) sell mobile devices, including those

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (San Francisco)

Quotation

Howard M. Ullman, The US District Court for the Northern District of California dismisses with leave to amend antitrust claims against high-tech producers employing the android operating system (Cascades Computer Innovation / RPX), 24 January 2013, e-Competitions Bulletin Licensing agreements, Art. N° 61416

Visites 79

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues