United States: Federal Circuit Provides Important Guidance In RAND Disputes

Last Updated: December 16 2014
Article by Jay Jurata and Monte Cooper

On Dec. 4, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued a much-anticipated opinion in Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., Nos. 2013-1625, -1631, -1632, -1633 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 4, 2014). The panel—consisting of Judges Kathleen O'Malley, Richard Taranto and Todd Hughes—ruled on several issues, the most significant of which is the proper methodology for calculating "reasonable and non-discriminatory" (RAND) royalty rates for RAND-encumbered "standard essential patents" (SEPs). The opinion, authored by Judge O'Malley, represents the first guidance from an appellate court on how to calculate a RAND royalty.

Background of Dispute

The case stems from a patent infringement action brought in the Eastern District of Texas by Ericsson against D-Link, Netgear and several other defendants (collectively, "D-Link") based on infringement of multiple patents deemed essential to the IEEE 802.11(n) WiFi standard. Prior to adoption of that standard, Ericsson committed to the IEEE that it would license any patents covering the standard on RAND terms. The jury found that D-Link infringed Ericsson's patents through its sale of a variety of electronic devices such as WiFi-equipped laptop computers and routers, and awarded roughly $10 million in damages—approximately $0.15 per infringing device.

Notably, the District Court refused to specially instruct the jury on how to calculate a RAND royalty, "patent hold-up" and "royalty stacking." Patent hold-up exists when the holder of a SEP demands excessive royalties after companies are locked into using a standard. Royalty stacking can arise when a standard implicates numerous patents, perhaps hundreds, if not thousands. If companies are forced to pay royalties to all SEP holders, the royalties will "stack" on top of each other and may become excessive in the aggregate.

Despite D-Link's wish to specially instruct the jury on these issues, the District Court instead simply instructed the jury to apply the 15 normal Georgia-Pacific factors1 used to calculate a reasonable royalty for patent infringement, adding a new 16th factor related to Ericsson's obligation to license its technology on RAND terms. This decision was one of the issues that was then appealed by D-Link.

Summary of Opinion and Likely Implications Going Forward

The Federal Circuit affirmed infringement findings of two patents and reversed the infringement finding on one patent while upholding its validity. It also affirmed the District Court's decision to allow Ericsson to introduce evidence of other licenses covering multiple patents—some not relevant to RAND—despite D-Link's argument that to do so violated the entire market value rule. The Federal Circuit further concluded that D-Link waived any arguments that it was prejudicial for Ericsson's counsel to compare the cost of the end product to the requested royalty at trial. Nonetheless, it vacated the jury's damages award and remanded the case to the District Court because the jury had not been properly instructed about the effect of Ericsson's RAND obligations.

With respect to determining a RAND royalty rate, the Court discussed several important aspects, including: (1) the use of the Georgia-Pacific factors, (2) apportionment and (3) whether to instruct the jury on patent hold-up and royalty stacking. The Federal Circuit's application of these principles provides important implications for parties and courts in resolving disputes related to RAND-encumbered SEPs.

Use of Georgia-Pacific Factors in RAND Disputes

Historically, in determining a reasonable royalty to be awarded as damages for patent infringement, the courts balance 15 factors known as the Georgia-Pacific factors. Significantly, the Ericsson decision held that it was error for the District Court to simply employ those customary factors to calculate a RAND royalty, with no regard to whether the factors were relevant to RAND disputes. "In a case involving RAND-encumbered patents, many of the Georgia-Pacific factors simply are not relevant; many are even contrary to RAND principles." The decision cited several factors that are either irrelevant or misleading in the RAND context, including:

  • factor 4 (licensor's established policy and marketing program to maintain its patent monopoly);
  • factor 5 (commercial relationship between the licensor and licensee);
  • factor 8 (established profitability of the product made under the patent, its commercial success, and its current popularity);
  • factor 9 (utility and advantages of the patented invention over the old modes or devices); and
  • factor 10 (commercial embodiment of the licensor).

However, the Federal Circuit did not go so far as to say that there is a uniform, modified version of the Georgia-Pacific factors that must be used for all cases involving RAND-encumbered patents. Instead, the opinion acknowledged: "Although we recognize the desire for bright line rules and the need for district courts to start somewhere, courts must consider the facts of the record when instructing the jury and should avoid rote reference to any particular damages formula."

The Federal Circuit also held that trial courts should consider the specific language of the patentee's "actual RAND commitment" in crafting jury instructions covering damages for a RAND-encumbered SEP. This is because RAND obligations can vary from case to case based on the specific language of the commitment made by the patent owner. Here, Ericsson had promised in its IEEE commitment that it would "grant a license under reasonable rates to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide basis with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of unfair discrimination." The parties agreed that this commitment was binding on Ericsson, and the Federal Circuit held that the District Court must "inform the jury what specific commitments have been made and of its obligation (not just an option) to take those commitments into account when determining a royalty award."

Apportionment Analysis for SEPs

Similar to most of the district courts that previously have issued opinions discussing RAND,2 the Federal Circuit noted that two special apportionment issues arise when dealing with RAND-encumbered SEPs that also must be considered by the trier of fact. First, the patented feature must be apportioned from all of the unpatented features reflected in the standard. Second, the patentee's royalty must be premised on the value of the patented feature, and not any value added by the standard's adoption of the patented technology. As the decision noted: "These steps are necessary to ensure that the royalty award is based on the incremental value that the patented invention adds to the product, not any value added by the standardization of that technology."

Thus, just as courts must apportion damages for a patent that adds value only to a small part of a device, courts also must apportion damages for SEPs that add value to only a small part of the standard. Stated another way, a royalty award for a SEP must be apportioned to the value of the patented invention, not the value of the standard as a whole. Further, district courts must also apportion the value of the patented technology apart from the value of its standardization. The patent holder should only be compensated for the approximate incremental benefit derived from his invention. Thus, the Federal Circuit clarified that the jury must be instructed to differentiate the added benefit from any value the innovation gains because it has become standard essential.

Patent Hold-Up and Royalty Stacking

Finally, the Federal Circuit rejected D-Link's argument that the jury should have been instructed on patent hold-up and royalty stacking. It noted that the District Court must only consider the evidence before it, and need not instruct on patent hold-up or royalty stacking "unless the accused infringer presents actual evidence of hold-up or stacking," as opposed to "a general argument that these phenomena are possibilities." Absent evidence that a patentee used its SEPs to demand higher royalties from standard implementers, a jury need not be instructed on patent hold-up. Similarly, the fact that potentially thousands of patents are essential to a standard does not necessarily mean, absent evidence to the contrary, that an implementer will be required to pay a royalty to each SEP holder.

Applying this standard, the Federal Circuit held that the District Court did not err by refusing to instruct the jury on these issues because D-Link failed to present adequate evidence of patent hold-up and royalty stacking. It also offered an example of evidence that might have sufficed to prove patent hold-up—evidence that Ericsson started requesting higher royalty rates after the adoption of the 802.11(n) standard. Likewise, it also provided examples of sufficient evidence to prove royalty stacking—evidence of other licenses D-Link had taken on WiFi essential patents or royalty demands on its WiFi-enabled products.

Conclusion

For cases involving RAND-encumbered SEPs, the Federal Circuit has now made clear that a district court must instruct the jury on how the specific RAND promise at issue changes the Georgia-Pacific factors normally considered in determining reasonable royalties. As the first Federal Circuit decision to weigh in on this particular issue, Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc. is certain to impact the ongoing debate on how to calculate RAND royalty rates, and may serve as a useful framework for resolving future disputes involving RAND-encumbered SEPs.

Footnotes

1. See Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970).

2. See Realtek Semiconductor, Corp. v. LSI Corp., No. C-12-3451, 2014 WL 2738216, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2014); In re Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC Patent Litig., No. 11 C 9308, 2013 WL 5593609, at *8-12 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 3, 2013); Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. C10-1823JLR, 2013 WL 2111217, at *18-20 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 25, 2013).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Events from this Firm
13 Nov 2018, Seminar, Tokyo, Japan

Orrick’s Global Japan Practice is hosting a series of “Orrick Library” seminars to explore legal issues in various fields in Japan as well as the United States, Asia and Europe.

15 Nov 2018, Webinar, Newark, United States

We are now 6 months into this groundbreaking new law which has significant impact on businesses in and outside the EU.

15 Nov 2018, Webinar, Washington, United States

Over the last decade, a new phenomenon in the sports law arena has emerged: from improper drug dispensing to traumatic brain injury to publicity rights, class actions have become a popular vehicle for litigating sports-related claims.

 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions