Curtis Dodd Image

Curtis Dodd

Chief Intellectual Property Officer

Harfang IP

Curtis Dodd is Chief Licensing Officer (CLO) and Chief Intellectual Property Officer (CIPO) at Harfang IP. Curt is a veteran of patent monetization, enforcement and portfolio management in the telecommunications and consumer electronics space with over twenty years of industry experience. Among other roles, Curt was counsel for Nortel Networks and lead the management of its 4G wireless portfolio (twice being named as an inventor). Curt also worked for Wi-LAN as Vice President, Patents and Counsel, for Acacia as Senior Vice President and Licensing Executive. Curt has been named to Intellectual Asset Management magazine’s lists of the World’s 300 Leading IP Strategists and the World’s 300 Global Leaders.

Recent Articles by Curtis Dodd

G+ Communications v. Samsung: The Perils of Being ‘Half-Committed’ to FRAND

Earlier this year, a jury trial was held in the matter of G+ Communications, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No: 2:22-CV-00078-JRG (E.D. Texas). Pursuant to the jury’s verdict, two of the three patents asserted were found to be infringed by Samsung, and compensation was awarded to G+ in the amount of $45 million for one patent and $22.5 million for the other. The verdict further indicated these amounts were running royalties as opposed to lump sum royalties. Additionally, the jury found G+ had not “breached its [fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory] FRAND obligation by failing to offer a license to the Asserted Patents to Samsung that was fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory, and by failing to act in good faith regarding negotiations with Samsung as to a FRAND license covering the Asserted Patents.”

G+ Communications v. Samsung: Splitting the FRAND Baby

A recent decision out of the Eastern District of Texas sheds further light on Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s interpretation of a patent owner’s commitment to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) pursuant to ETSI’s Intellectual Property Rights Information Statement and Licensing Declaration (“the ETSI Licensing Declaration”). The decision, however, also raises some questions for SEP owners. A little over a year ago, we considered how French and California law would interpret a patent owner ‘s commitment to ETSI pursuant to the ETSI Licensing Declaration. The in depth analysis can be found here, while a summary version published on IPWatchdog can be found here. At a high level, we considered the issue both from the perspective of performance being possible without implementer engagement, and from the perspective of performance requiring implementer cooperation.

Past Events with Curtis Dodd