United States: Ninth Circuit Upholds Landmark FRAND Decision And Jury Verdict

On July 30, 2015, the Ninth Circuit issued one of the most significant appellate opinions regarding standard essential patents (SEPs) subject to commitments to license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND, or simply RAND) terms.  In Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc. (Case No. 14-35393), the Court upheld determinations by U.S. District Court Judge James Robart (W.D. Wash.) as to (i) when a member of a Standard Setting Organization (SSO) is obligated to license that member's SEP on FRAND terms, (ii) what the proper methodology is for calculating a FRAND royalty rate, and (iii) what remedies are available for breach of an obligation to license a SEP on FRAND terms.  The affirmance represents a major victory for Microsoft and other SEP licensees, and provides significant guidance regarding future FRAND disputes.


The Microsoft v. Motorola case involves a breach of contract action, filed by Microsoft after it concluded that Motorola's proposed licensing terms under the Motorola IEEE 802.11 and ITU-T H.264 SEP patent portfolios (respectively covering wireless local area network standards and video compression standards) were excessive and violated the FRAND obligations for SEPs, which obligations Motorola assumed as a member of the IEEE and ITU-T.  Motorola initially sent Microsoft two letters offering to license its SEPs for 2.25% of the price of the end product incorporating each standard. (The end products included Microsoft's xBox game consoles and PCs running Microsoft Windows.)  Microsoft claimed that Motorola's license offer—which amounted to over $4 billion per year—was in breach of Motorola's obligation to license its SEPs on FRAND terms.  Shortly thereafter, Motorola initiated patent infringement proceedings in U.S. District Court, the International Trade Commission, and Germany seeking injunctions to exclude Microsoft's allegedly infringing products incorporating certain of those SEPs.

Microsoft prevailed at the district court, where Judge Robart conducted an initial bench trial on FRAND.  After modifying several factors in the Georgia-Pacific analysis for determining reasonable royalty patent damages to account for the special circumstances surrounding FRAND-encumbered SEPs, Judge Robart calculated a FRAND royalty rate well below 2.25% per unit, resulting in a royalty amount of only $1.8 million per year.  Microsoft's breach of contract claim was then tried to a jury, and Judge Robart's FRAND royalty calculations and underlying findings of fact were introduced as evidence at the jury trial.  Microsoft argued to the jury that Motorola's initial licensing offer, as well as Motorola's conduct in seeking injunctions after Microsoft filed suit, were breaches of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing imposed on SEP owners.  The jury returned a verdict in favor of Microsoft, and awarded $14.52 million dollars in damages.  (The damages represented costs incurred by Microsoft in defending against the injunction actions, and moving Microsoft's European distribution center out of Germany to avoid any injunctive consequences.)

Motorola appealed, challenging the methodology Judge Robart used to reach his FRAND calculation, the sufficiency of the evidence for the jury's finding, and the procedural mechanisms Judge Robart used to decide the FRAND and breach of contract issues.

Summary of Appellate Opinion

The Court's analysis opened by discussing the benefits and risks of the standardization process.  The Court noted the "opportunity for companies to engage in anti-competitive behavior" following formal adoption of the standard by "demand[ing] more for a license than the patented technology, had it not been adopted by the SSO, would be worth."  That risk is known as patent hold-up.  "To mitigate the risk that a SEP holder will extract more than the fair value of its patented technology, many SSOs require SEP holders to agree to license their patents on 'reasonable and nondiscriminatory' or 'RAND' terms."  The purpose of that FRAND commitment is to prevent a SEP owner from attempting to use its SEPs to exclude competitors from the market or to obtain more favorable licensing terms than it could have obtained absent the patent's inclusion in the standard.

Moving to Microsoft's claim that Motorola's breach of its FRAND commitment constituted a breach of contract, the Ninth Circuit first concluded it, as opposed to the Federal Circuit, had appellate jurisdiction to resolve the issues related to the FRAND rate, notwithstanding that the underlying dispute arose in the context of licensing and evaluation of the value of patents.  Critical to the Ninth Circuit's conclusion were the facts that (i) Motorola had taken an earlier interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and (ii) Motorola had tried to appeal the district court's FRAND calculations and jury verdict to the Federal Circuit, and the Federal Circuit had transferred the appeal back to the Ninth Circuit.  The Ninth Circuit also ruled that Motorola had consented to Judge Robart's bench trial to calculate the underlying FRAND royalty rate for submission to the jury in the breach of contract action, while being careful not to rule "whether, absent consent, a jury should have made the RAND determination."

On questions of substantive law, the Ninth Circuit found that Judge Robart's FRAND analysis in the bench trial was consistent with Federal Circuit law on patent damages.  The Court first affirmed Judge Robart's approach to framing a hypothetical negotiation, and particularly the "factors an [sic] SEP owner and implementer would consider in an actual negotiation directed at licensing a patent subject to RAND commitments," such as "the objective value each contributed to each standard, given the quality of the technology and the available alternatives as well as the importance of those technologies to Microsoft's business."

Specifically, the Court rejected Motorola's argument that Judge Robart misapplied the Georgia-Pacific royalty factors when he modified, and outright discarded, a number of factors that he determined were inapplicable to a FRAND commitment.  For example, the Court stated that "factor fifteen" —setting the hypothetical negotiation at "the time the infringement began" —requires modification in the FRAND context, and that Georgia-Pacific offered flexibility in application of its factors.  The Court also noted that what date the infringement began was an unclear point in this breach-of-contract action—as opposed to a patent infringement action—making it impracticable to consider only evidence that pinpointed the value of Motorola's patents to Microsoft at a particular moment in time.

In another significant part of the opinion, the Court fully endorsed Judge Robart's reliance on patent pools rather than Motorola's historical license agreements, as more relevant indicators of the FRAND rate.  The Court noted that patent pools were similar enough to FRAND agreements and "mirrored the objectives of FRAND agreements, namely including advanced technology to create valuable standards, while at the same time ensuring widespread adoption" of the standards.  Motorola's past licenses, in contrast, were not probative because they either encompassed much more than the SEPs at issue here (which made it impossible "to isolate, or apportion the value" attributable to the SEPs), or they were formed under threat of litigation, which is inconsistent with the underlying purpose of FRAND commitments.  The Court noted that it "holds only that licenses should be considered when comparable; it does not in any respect impugn the district court's reasoning as to why the proffered licenses were not comparable."

Turning to the jury verdict, the Court found that Judge Robart's denial of Motorola's motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of Microsoft's case-in-chief (and again at the conclusion of the trial) was proper.  According to the Court, the jury had sufficient evidence to find that Motorola breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing with respect to its FRAND obligations.  In reaching this finding, the Court noted the danger of and need to prevent patent hold-up by a SEP owner who refuses to license technology essential to practicing a standard unless the licensee pays exorbitant royalty rates.  The Court also held that a jury could have found that Motorola sought to leverage the "crippling consequences" of the injunction it attempted to obtain against Microsoft in order "to capture more than the value of its patents."  The Court observed that Motorola pursued injunctive relief even after it knew its suit against Microsoft could establish FRAND rates, meaning Motorola should have known that it could not show the irreparable harm necessary for injunctive relief.

Finally, in affirming the award of damages for Microsoft's attorneys' fees to defend against Motorola's pursuit of an injunction, the Court concluded that Motorola's Noerr-Pennington/First Amendment defense was inapplicable to suits for breach of contract because a FRAND commitment amounts to a voluntary waiver of the right to seek injunctive relief in certain circumstances.  The Court also emphasized that awarding attorneys' fees under the circumstances would decrease the risk of patent hold-up by encouraging SEP owners to negotiate FRAND licenses rather than seek injunctions.

Implications of the Opinion for Future FRAND Disputes

Some portions of the Ninth Circuit's decision, such as jurisdiction and the right to a jury trial, are unique to the underlying factual circumstances of this particular dispute.  But there are several key takeaways that SEP owners and potential licensees should be mindful of in future FRAND disputes:

  1. The Court has provided an endorsed framework for determining FRAND royalties.  Judge Robart's modified use of the Georgia-Pacific factors for calculating FRAND-encumbered SEP royalty rates, which was earlier cited with approval by the Federal Circuit in its Ericsson decision, has now been endorsed by two Courts of Appeals.  As such, that modified framework is likely to be the primary benchmark going forward in judicial determinations of FRAND royalty rates in patent infringement and FRAND licensing disputes.
  2. In upholding the jury's verdict that Motorola violated an implied contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the Court found the mere fact that Motorola filed a patent infringement lawsuit seeking injunctive relief after Microsoft filed suit seeking a judicial determination of FRAND royalty rates was sufficient evidence supporting the verdict.  The Ninth Circuit has thus joined the growing list of authorities worldwide who have concluded that seeking injunctions against willing licensees for FRAND-encumbered SEPs is unlawful.
  3. The decision also adds to the growing list of authority holding that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine does not immunize a company for breaching a FRAND commitment.  "Enforcing a contractual commitment to refrain from litigation does not violate the First Amendment; if it did, every settlement of a lawsuit would be unenforceable as a Noerr-Pennington violation."  This reflects the practical reality that if SEP owners were allowed to use the doctrine as a shield when seeking injunctions against willing licensees, the FRAND commitment process relied upon by so many SSOs would become meaningless.
  4. Building upon recent Federal Circuit precedent concerning the need to use comparable licenses as benchmarks in calculating reasonable royalty rates for patent damages, the Court endorses the exclusion of licenses as FRAND benchmarks when those licenses are entered into under threat of injunction.  This is because such licenses likely exceed the value of the underlying technology due to the fact that they were entered into under the risk of a product being excluded, which is inconsistent with the purpose of a FRAND commitment.

As a final and fundamental matter, the Ninth Circuit in Microsoft v. Motorola ultimately affirms a FRAND calculation methodology that should be viewed as pro-SEP licensee.  The Court's tendency can be seen in its repeated mention of the risk of patent hold-up for SEPs and suggestion that FRAND royalties based on end product calculations are inappropriate, absent proof that both the SEP and the standard itself relate to the functionality of the end product.  Of course, what an ultimate FRAND royalty equates to in a particular case will be heavily dependent upon the facts of the case, including the comparability of prior licenses and the relative technological importance of particular patents to the functionality of the underlying standard.

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.

Events from this Firm
16 Jan 2019, Other, New York, United States

Intellectual Property partner Paul Fakler will moderate the “The Future of Music Mechanical Licensing” panel at the Copyright and Technology 2019 Conference.

16 Jan 2019, Webinar, New York, United States

LIBOR is the most widely used reference rate in the financial markets and it may be discontinued after 2021. For U.S. dollar-denominated contracts, it is expected to be replaced with SOFR (Secured Overnight Funding Rate).

17 Jan 2019, Speaking Engagement, New York, United States

Orrick Partner Jill Rosenberg will speak at the New York State Bar Association 2019 Annual Meeting, Dispute Resolution Section and Corporate Counsel.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
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.


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.


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