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
- IP News: Barks & Bites for Friday, March 14 | IPWatchdog
- CAFC: Prior Art Requires Written Support for Jepson Claim
- The Return of a Mandate on Patent Infringement Precludes Further Consideration of Issues Actually Decided
- CAFC Affirms TTAB Ruling that FIREBALL is Not Generic but Competitor’s Mark Won’t Confuse
- John Squires Becomes Official Nominee to Head USPTO