Quarterhill Inc T.QTRH

WiLAN Smart TV Litigation

[cabbieJBJ]

WiLAN Smart TV Litigation Hits an Evidentiary Wall on Appeal

The Federal Circuit has just upheld the dismissal of two Quarterhill Inc. smart TV cases against Sharp and Vizio after rejecting evidence central to its infringement claims as inadmissible. In an April 6 precedential decision (2020-1041), the appellate court agreed with Delaware District Judge Leonard Stark that plaintiff Wi-LAN Inc. (WiLAN), Quarterhill’s licensing arm, could not rely on certain documents obtained through litigation: an alleged printout of certain source code for the video chipsets at issue and related explanatory declarations. WiLAN had offered that evidence in lieu of the source code itself, which the NPE had been unable to procure from the chipsets’ third-party manufacturers through discovery.

[mrmoribund]

This sounds like it may have been the kind of thing IP Watchdog had in mind when they endorsed the view that taking IP questions to the Federal Circuit is a kind of lottery. I guess the lawyers will know if this is worth the trouble of approaching the highest court in the land. My guess is that this one isn't. Here's a thought. WiLAN should push back on attempts to characterize it as an

[cabbieJBJ]

The reorg is worth discussion mrmoribund; however Wilan's IP holdings are well beyond the scope of ITS.  Don't know to what extent that could be a mitigating factor. On the CAFC ruling, I wonder if the door may still be open.  As I understand the issue, the chiop manufacturer (I don't know who) ignored the subpoena to produce souce code. The court did not have jurisdiction.&

[cabbieJBJ]

Got to read the CAFC ruling and it appears that this is a dead issue.  The district court ruled that Wilna had sifficient time to get the code through proper channels.  The CAFC agreed.