Blog

Judge Hellerstein, however, recently disagreed. His short order upends a lot of conventional thinking about the confidentiality of patent settlement agreements, with its finding that the public interest in transparent court proceedings and in the "legitimate scope" of patent monopolies outweighs the interests of the parties in keeping the agreement confidential. Except for the actual payment amount, the "strong common law and constitutional presumptions of public access" compel disclosure of the other settlement terms in Judge Hellerstein's view. Especially where the the "court and parties should be publicly accountable for private settlement arrangements" involving patent rights that affect the public-at-large. 

Nothing says summer in Wilmington, Delaware like a full-on patent trial. Especially when the trial involves two brand name companies -- in this case IBM and Groupon -- fighting more over principle than anything else. Sure, IBM has a big demand for over $150mm in damages sitting out there. What's really on trial, however, is IBM's insistence on extracting a toll from e-commerce providers, backed by its getting-creaky-with-age but extensive patent portfolio. And a company on the other side, Groupon, that doesn't feel like IBM's demands are justified.

As investors (should) know, the current worldwide patent war between Qualcomm and Apple is perhaps the most important set of ongoing patent litigation there is. As Bloomberg notes in a overview article of the dispute, the stakes are high. Apple faces the possibility of injunctive relief against, most importantly in its key manufacturing site and second-most important sales market, China. For its part, Qualcomm needs to recover billions in lost revenue from Apple (up to $4.5bn, according to some estimates) while maintaining the industry perception that Qualcomm's vast patent portfolio is indispensable and of inordinate value.