1. Enrico
Bonadio, Jorge Tinoco, and Daniel Leopoldino have published a post on the Kluwer Patent Blog titled SEPs
Injunctions with a Tropical Flavour: the Brazilian Scenario.  The post discusses several FRAND cases in
which Brazilian courts have granted preliminary and, in one case, permanent
injunctive relief.  The authors note one
recent case, however—DivX v Gorenje—in which the
court denied a preliminary injunction, subject to the defendant posting a bond,
which they state “ might represent a turn in the national SEPs case law, which
would place Brazil more in line with other jurisdictions such as the EU where
FRAND commitments are taken seriously . . . .”

2. Graham
Burnett-Hall has published a post on EPLaw titled UK – Panasonic v.
Xiaomi – Appeal / FRAND, discussing the recent decision of the EWCA holding,
as the author states, “that, once the parties to a FRAND dispute have agreed
that the UK court should determine the fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory
(FRAND) terms for a global licence for the relevant standard essential patents
(SEPs), it is not consistent with the patentee’s FRAND obligations for the
patentee to pursue separate proceedings and seek injunctions against the same
implementer in other jurisdictions,” and that instead the patentee should be an
interim license that may be adjusted later on. 
I also blogged about this decision recently, here.

3. On
ip fray, Florian Mueller
published a post titled UPC’s Dusseldorf LD enjoins resale of smartphones
for elderly over LED patent, addresses some interesting legal questions,
discussing a recent decision (Seoul Viosys v.
expert e-Commerce GmbH & expert klein GmbH) granting an
injunction, notwithstanding the fact that the patent in suit forms a relatively
minor component of the end product (see para. I(G) of the decision). 

4.  I mentioned a few weeks ago that OxFirst would
be presenting a free webinar on the European Commission’s amicus brief, filed
with the Munich Higher Regional Court, in HMD Global Oy v. VoiceAge EVS GmbH
& Co.  The recording of the
webinar is now available here.  I should note that I will be participating in
a webinar on this topic, along with inter alia my coeditors Peter Picht
and Erik Habich, sometime in November; more details to follow.

5.  On Patently-O,
Dennis Crouch published a post titled The Historical Roots of Patent
Injunctions: Revisiting Horton v. Maltby (1783).  Very interesting post, thought I remain unconvinced
that U.S. courts are legally obligated to consider ongoing infringement
inherently to constitute irreparable harm, given the courts’ contemporary
ability to award damages, including postjudgment damages for ongoing
infringement.