The SEP negotiation framework is a multi-faceted one since it involves Patent Law, Competition Law and Contract Law considerations. India does not have a SEP negotiation framework like the one laid down by the CJEU in Huawei v ZTE. [The Delhi High Court, in Ericsson v CCI, has made a reference to the CJEU judgment in Huawei v ZTE].
It is not that the CJEU judgment has removed all the ambiguities in the SEP negotiation framework. On the other hand, the CJEU judgment has set out a framework which is subject to the interpretation of the national courts of EU. The Federal Court of Justice of Germany (BGH) has delivered a judgment interpreting the Huawei v. ZTE framework. The judgment is quite significant considering the catena of SEP-related cases decided by various German courts. This is the first judgment of BGH on a FRAND dispute post – Huawei v. ZTE. A detailed summary is available here. This post is only meant to highlight some key aspects.
Sisvel v Haier, KZR 36/17
On 05 May 2020, the German Federal Court of Justice delivered a landmark judgment that interpreted the FRAND negotiation framework laid down by the CJEU in Huawei v. ZTE.
The BGH clarified that a patent right will not ipso facto create a dominant position.
The BGH cautioned that the conduct of infringer should reflect genuineness and seriousness as far as FRAND licensing negotiations are concerned. For e.g, conditional declaration of willingness can indicate absence of seriousness on the part of the infringer. 
The infringer must be presented with sufficient (and not detailed) information which will enable the infringer to assess the allegation of infringement.
The patent holder is required to provide information on computation of royalty only after the expression of willingness by the infringer. 
FRAND royalty rate is not an objective number; it can be a range. 
Portfolio licensing does not by itself indicate abuse of dominant position. It can amount to abuse of dominant position if certain conditions are met. 
On computation of damages, FRAND royalty can be the basis only when the infringer was a willing licensee 
 Paragraphs 56, 57, 58
 Paragraph 83
 Paragraph 96
 Paragraph 98
 Paragraph 99
 Paragraph 81
 Paragraph 78