In recent months, case law is continuing to develop in the evolving jurisprudence surrounding standard essential patents (SEPs) in the U.S. and elsewhere.
In November, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order granting in part the FTC’s bid for summary judgment in its unfair competition case involving Qualcomm. The order addressed the issue of whether, under industry agreements to license SEPs at rates that are fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND), Qualcomm had to license its essential patents to competing modem chip suppliers.
Unwired Planet International Ltd. v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. is another decision some experts view as having wide implications. In October, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales issued its much-anticipated ruling, finding Huawei may be barred from selling its smartphones in the U.K. if it refuses to pay a global license fee for Unwired Planet’s technology. The Court also rejected Huawei’s suggestion that the license Unwired Planet offered was not on “nondiscriminatory terms” because the royalty rate was higher than that which Unwired Planet previously agreed to with Samsung. The judgment could impact not only the terms of future licenses, but also the way that parties negotiate licenses and make offers to SEP owners.
Our panelists, which include lawyers who represent both SEP owners and implementers, will discuss:
- Whether global licenses will come to dominate FRAND negotiations in the future
- If there is any consensus emerging on how to calculate license terms that are fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory for SEP patents
- The strengths and weaknesses of the differing valuation approaches of TCL and Unwired Planet
- The impact of the availability of injunctions for the infringement of a SEP in Europe and China on litigation strategy
- Logan Breed, Hogan Lovells LLP
- David Djavaherian, PacTech Law
- Matteo Sabattini, Ericsson