In a previous article, we discussed the difference between a reasonable royalty for patent infringement and a FRAND licensing rate, both in terms of their origins and objectives: the former being a creature of statute and case law that seeks to compensate a patent owner for infringement, whereas the latter is rooted in contract and seeks, amongst other things, to address issues of royalty stacking and discriminatory licensing. Despite these differences, we noted that these two concepts have often been treated interchangeably by courts, often leading to confusing results…. Pursuant to appeal of that decision, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has now addressed the photonegative question in HTC Corp. et al. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM et al., case number 19-40643: are patent laws regarding what constitutes a reasonable royalty applicable to questions of compliance with FRAND-related contractual obligations? Though the majority decision did a great job highlighting the distinction between these two different concepts, there was a concurring decision that continues to blur the line.
Recent Posts
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, July 19: UPC Issues First-Ever Patent Revocation; Meta Announces Latest AI Model Won’t be Released in EU Due to Regulatory Concerns; and CAFC Dismisses PTAB Appeal as Moot Due to Prior District Court Invalidation
- Federal Circuit Affirms Ineligibility of Background Check Patent Claims
- The Administrative Procedure Act and Its Impact on Intellectual Property
- USPTO Updates Eligibility Guidance for AI: ‘We Want to Accelerate AI Innovation Without Locking it Up’
- Decoding the Modern AI Landscape | IPWatchdog Unleashed