Author name: Rajiv Kr. Choudhry

The European Commission on April 29, 2014 issued two press releases in the competition law cases in investigations against Motorola Mobility and Samsung.  A very-very interesting list of FAQs have also been issued constituting in some sort – guidelines for licensing SEPs under FRAND terms.  I’ll spend some time on the guidelines as they have extremely important ramifications back here in India, but I would summarize the Motorola and Samsung decisions first.  After these decisions, the position of the EU […]

A Paris Court, in a recent decision reported by EPPatent law blog) denied Ericsson’s request for a preliminary injunction on the ground that an injunction cannot be granted for standard essential patents (SEPs) when the parties to a proposed license agreement agree on geographical and technological scope of the license, but only financial terms remain to be agreed as an injunction would confer an unjustified advantage on the patentee.  My thanks to Véron & Associés, for making available online, the translation in English.

Continuing from my previous posts (part 1, part 2) this post analyses various aspects of a F/RAND scheme and suggests certain aspects that could be incorporated into a F/RAND licensing framework.  As such this an academic post, and builds on several concepts introduced in the Motorola v. Microsoft decision and the Innovatio IP Ventures case.  More importantly, the framework described in this post tries to balance the stakes between the IP holder and an IP implementer. One feature (distributed infringement)

Continuing from my previous post, this post analyses the Innovatio IP Ventures decision.  In the Innovatio case, Judge Holderman modifies some of the concepts in Judge Robart’s decision in Motorola.  Hence, the modifications and reasoning thereof are highlighted separately in this post. Both the Motorola, and Innovatio decisions form the basis of my next post in the series.  Long post follows. Innovatio IP Ventures: In September 2013, in the third case involving determination of FRAND royalties, Judge Holderman, in n

The year 2013 has been a watershed year for standard essential patent (“SEP”) owners and related fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) valuations.  This year has seen a consensus build upon the unavailability of injunctive relief to FRAND-encumbered patent holders.  At least a few cases saw common ground built up on the methodology for calculating a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) royalty rate and a royalty base.  This year also saw the takeover of Nokia’s devices and services business by Microsoft.