Comparative Study of FRAND Royalties for Standard Essential Patents

碩士 === 國立交通大學 === 科技法律研究所 === 107 === The article reviews judicial decisions of fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) royalties in various jurisdictions. Starting with Microsoft v. Motorola in 2013, the first FRAND royalty decision ever made, courts from different jurisdictions have address...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Chung, Ching-Chou, 鍾京洲
Other Authors: Liu, Shang-Jyh
Format: Others
Language:zh-TW
Published: 2019
Online Access:http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/fe4ejr
id ndltd-TW-107NCTU5705009
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-TW-107NCTU57050092019-06-27T05:42:50Z http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/fe4ejr Comparative Study of FRAND Royalties for Standard Essential Patents 標準必要專利FRAND權利金計算之比較研究 Chung, Ching-Chou 鍾京洲 碩士 國立交通大學 科技法律研究所 107 The article reviews judicial decisions of fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) royalties in various jurisdictions. Starting with Microsoft v. Motorola in 2013, the first FRAND royalty decision ever made, courts from different jurisdictions have addressed their opinions on how to determine FRAND royalties. After exploring rationales in each case, the article then extracts useful approaches and key implications for determining FRAND royalties in order to depict an applicable framework. Courts now primarily consider either “top down approach” or “comparable license analysis,” or even both as a reliable cross-check, to come up with final FRAND royalties for SEPs in suit. The article further focuses on Philips v. Gigastorage, a controversial patent infringement case where Taiwan Intellectual Property Court awarded the patentee (Philips) an outrageous amount of damages based on unjust enrichment. Taiwan Supreme Court later reversed the decision, holding that the lower court erred in refusing to take patent apportionment into consideration. The article respectively analyzes and discusses the methodology the court adopted in its first and second instance, and turns to support the Supreme Court’s decision. The article concluded that under the comparable license analysis, royalties from a comparable license should merely be considered as a starting point for the calculation, and that the court should further consider apportioning the economic value of the infringed patent(s) from the entire patent portfolio. The consideration could help avoid risk of patent hold-up and royalty stacking. The implications and trends in the article may shed some light on future FRAND royalty calculation, for corporations in the global telecommunications arena as well as for the judiciary in Taiwan. Liu, Shang-Jyh Chuang, Hung-Yu 劉尚志 莊弘鈺 2019 學位論文 ; thesis 80 zh-TW
collection NDLTD
language zh-TW
format Others
sources NDLTD
description 碩士 === 國立交通大學 === 科技法律研究所 === 107 === The article reviews judicial decisions of fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) royalties in various jurisdictions. Starting with Microsoft v. Motorola in 2013, the first FRAND royalty decision ever made, courts from different jurisdictions have addressed their opinions on how to determine FRAND royalties. After exploring rationales in each case, the article then extracts useful approaches and key implications for determining FRAND royalties in order to depict an applicable framework. Courts now primarily consider either “top down approach” or “comparable license analysis,” or even both as a reliable cross-check, to come up with final FRAND royalties for SEPs in suit. The article further focuses on Philips v. Gigastorage, a controversial patent infringement case where Taiwan Intellectual Property Court awarded the patentee (Philips) an outrageous amount of damages based on unjust enrichment. Taiwan Supreme Court later reversed the decision, holding that the lower court erred in refusing to take patent apportionment into consideration. The article respectively analyzes and discusses the methodology the court adopted in its first and second instance, and turns to support the Supreme Court’s decision. The article concluded that under the comparable license analysis, royalties from a comparable license should merely be considered as a starting point for the calculation, and that the court should further consider apportioning the economic value of the infringed patent(s) from the entire patent portfolio. The consideration could help avoid risk of patent hold-up and royalty stacking. The implications and trends in the article may shed some light on future FRAND royalty calculation, for corporations in the global telecommunications arena as well as for the judiciary in Taiwan.
author2 Liu, Shang-Jyh
author_facet Liu, Shang-Jyh
Chung, Ching-Chou
鍾京洲
author Chung, Ching-Chou
鍾京洲
spellingShingle Chung, Ching-Chou
鍾京洲
Comparative Study of FRAND Royalties for Standard Essential Patents
author_sort Chung, Ching-Chou
title Comparative Study of FRAND Royalties for Standard Essential Patents
title_short Comparative Study of FRAND Royalties for Standard Essential Patents
title_full Comparative Study of FRAND Royalties for Standard Essential Patents
title_fullStr Comparative Study of FRAND Royalties for Standard Essential Patents
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Study of FRAND Royalties for Standard Essential Patents
title_sort comparative study of frand royalties for standard essential patents
publishDate 2019
url http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/fe4ejr
work_keys_str_mv AT chungchingchou comparativestudyoffrandroyaltiesforstandardessentialpatents
AT zhōngjīngzhōu comparativestudyoffrandroyaltiesforstandardessentialpatents
AT chungchingchou biāozhǔnbìyàozhuānlìfrandquánlìjīnjìsuànzhībǐjiàoyánjiū
AT zhōngjīngzhōu biāozhǔnbìyàozhuānlìfrandquánlìjīnjìsuànzhībǐjiàoyánjiū
_version_ 1719213480339308544