Search

In an environment in which widely adopted technical standards may each be covered by large numbers of patents, there have been increasing calls for courts to determine "fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory" (FRAND) royalties payable to holders of standards-essential patents (SEPs) using "topdown" methodologies. Top-down royalty approaches begin with the aggregate royalty that should be payable with respect to all SEPs covering a particular standard, and then allocate a portion of the total to individual SEPs. Top-down approaches avoid many drawbacks associated with bottom-up approaches in which royalties for individual SEPs are assessed, often in an inconsistent and piecemeal manner, without regard for the other SEPs that cover the standard. Yet despite the potential benefits of top-down methodologies, one of the most promising means for determining aggregate royalty levels--joint agreement by the members of the relevant standards-development organization (SDO)--has gained little traction. The idea of SDO participants jointly negotiating FRAND royalties attracted the attention of commentators and antitrust agencies about a decade ago, when a handful of SDOs began to explore mandatory ex ante rate disclosure requirements. But few SDOs adopted such policies, and joint negotiations were never incorporated into the mainstream standardization process. One reason that SDOs have been hesitant to endorse joint royalty negotiations is the perceived risk of antitrust liability arising from concerted action among competitors. But as numerous commentators and antitrust officials have reiterated, this fear is largely misplaced in the context of industry standardsetting. Thus, SDOs should follow the lead of patent pools and begin more actively to determine aggregate patent royalty burdens for standards that they develop. In addition, antitrust and competition authorities should assure the market that collective agreement on aggregate royalty rates alone should not give rise to antitrust liability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers a case report presenting the arguments made at the U.S. District Court and Federal Circuit in In re Brimonidine Patent Litigation, and also discussing how each of these courts addressed the issues raised by the parties. In this case, the Federal Circuit reversed the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware's holding that Exela PharmaSci, Inc. literally infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,641,834 and also reversed the District Court's decision.