IPRs and Standards - Balancing Interests of Licensors and Licensees Claudia Tapia Research In Motion 14. October 2009.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Name / Date 1 Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Competition.
Advertisements

A GIA is a contract between a surety company and a contractor (or subcontractor)/principal. A GIA is a standard, typical document in the construction.
Standard Essential Patents in Infringement Litigations - Orange-Book-Approach and latest developments Conference on Information Technology, Innovation.
Recommended Pre-Suit Case Analysis Likelihood of infringement Likelihood of validity Size of potential recovery Likelihood of injunction and its importance.
Let’s Study Legal English Together!. Modal verbs in Legal English Shall and May.
Damages Calculations in Infringement Cases Frank S. Farrell F.S. Farrell, LLC 7101 York Ave., So.; Suite 305 Edina, MN Phone: (952) Fax:
CHAPTER Section 22.1 Franchising & Licensing Section 22.2 Exit Strategies Franchising & Exit Strategies.
Patent Portfolio Management By: Michael A. Leonard II.
Law I Chapter 18.
Patent Infringement—Statute Study 10 experts. Term of Protection Article 42 The duration of an invention patent shall be twenty years, the duration of.
 Must be “interested person”  Beneficiary  Trustee  Attorney general (charitable trusts)  Others affected by the trust?
The Ownership Dilemma Ownership of intellectual property –considered by investors –sought by companies seeking to exploit the intellectual property –sought.
Legislative Measures for Promoting Responsible Lending in Estonia Nordic-Baltic Seminar “Consumer Credit in Nordic-Baltic Area: From SMS-Loans to Responsible.
Mediation and the Trial Civil Procedure Reforms practice direction Law Society of the Northern Territory Steve Walsh QC Alistair Wyvill SC.
AIPLA Annual Meeting 2014 Bifurcation before the UPC Dr. Jochen Pagenberg Attorney-at-law, Munich/Paris Past President EPLAW Prinzregentenplatz
1 Remedies for True Owner of Right to Obtain Patent against Usurped Patent AIPLA MWI IP Practice in Japan Committee Pre-Meeting Sunday, January 22, 2012.
Class action in The Netherlands Mr. Bertjan de Lange Mr. Tessa Havekes.
Banker customer relationship
Successful Technology Licensing Chapter III: Key Terms Cluster 3: Forms of Payment and other Financial Terms Arnaud Michel Gide Loyrette Nouel, Paris (Bogota,
“ New ways of identifying potential partners ” Charles Timoney October 14th, 2014.
Agustin Del Rio CalNet ID: Date: October 27th, 2008.
Indiana Patent Troll Statute for Demand Letters HEA Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement.
Les Dommages- Interêts et la Cour Unifiée des Brevets Damages and the Unified Patent Court.
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Andrew Thomases: Consequences of RAND Violations | 1 Consequences of RAND Violations Andrew Thomases.
What is copyright? the exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or.
What is Commercialization of IP Josiah Hernandez.
Continuity Clinic Liability Insurance 101 Modified from information on
Dr. Thomas W. Reimann IP Practice in Japan AIPLA Midwinter Meeting Las Vegas, January 2012 Latest Patent Development in the European Union.
Trademark II Infringement. Article 57 Infringement Article 57 Any of the following conduct shall be an infringement upon the right to exclusively use.
WIPO NATIONAL WORKSHOP ON NEGOTIATING TECHNOLOGY LICENSING AGREEMENTS organized by The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in cooperation with.
Virginia State Law Quiz. 1. For a Maryland licensee to sell real estate in Virginia, he/she must do all of the following EXCEPT: A. Take an approved course.
Patent Law Presented by: Walker & Mann, LLP Walker & Mann, LLP 9421 Haven Ave., Suite 200 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca Office.
© 2013 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. All rights reserved. Throughout this presentation, “Cleary Gottlieb” and the “firm” refer to Cleary Gottlieb.
2011 Japanese Patent Law Revision AIPLA Annual Meeting October 21, 2011 Yoshi Inaba TMI Associates.
Damages for Patent Infringement in The Netherlands Munich, October 27, 2008 Mr. Otto Swens, Vondst Advocaten Van Leijenberghlaan GG Amsterdam.
Appeals in patent examination and opposition in Germany Karin Friehe Judge, Federal Patent Court, Munich, Germany.
Arlington Industies, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.
Savings Plans and Payment Methods. Types of Savings Plans O To achieve your financial goals, you will need a savings program. O Savings programs include:
1 Decision by the grand panel of the IP High Court (February 1, 2013) re calculation of damages based on infringer’s profits Yasufumi Shiroyama Japan Federation.
Background of Compulsory Licensing in North America M. ANDREA RYAN IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT, AIPLA ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, PATENTS WYETH/U.S.A.
© 2004 VOSSIUS & PARTNER Opposition in the Procedural System by Dr. Johann Pitz AIPPI Hungary, June 2 – 4, 2004 Kecskemét.
1 FRAND COMMITMENTS AND EU COMPETITION LAW Thomas Kramler European Commission, DG Competition (The views expressed are not necessarily those of the European.
Intentional Torts. What are Intentional Torts? Actions that you take deliberately to cause harm Two types – those causing injury to people and those causing.
26/28/04/2014 – IP for Innovation HG Dynamic Use of Industrial Property for Innovation Growth, Competitiveness and Market Access Heinz Goddar Boehmert.
Law in the Global Marketplace: Intellectual Property and Related Issues Hosted by: FRAND in Europe: Huawei vs ZTE decision.
The Judicial Branch Unit 5. Court Systems & Jurisdictions.
GOALS BUSINESS MATH© Thomson/South-WesternLesson 3.7Slide 1 3.7Money Market and CD Accounts Calculate interest earned on special savings accounts Calculate.
3.7 Money Market and CD Accounts
Intellectual Property Patent – Infringement. Infringement 1.Literal Infringement 2.The Doctrine of Equivalents 35 U.S.C. § 271 –“(a) Except as otherwise.
Civil Procedure Part 36 Allocation.
Patent Cases IM 350 Lamoureux & Baron Sept. 6, 2009.
Employee Inventions in Germany Dr. Udo Meyer BASF Aktiengesellschaft, Germany On behalf of UNICE (Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederation of Europe)
Civil Law Civil Law – is also considered private law as it is between individuals. It may also be called “Tort” Law, as a tort is a wrong committed against.
Patent Pools – Issues of Dominance and Royalty Setting Marleen Van Kerckhove ABA Brown Bag Presentation March 20 th, 2007.
Compulsory Patent Licence in German Law with focus on the Antitrust Compulsory Licence Defence EU-China IPR2 Project Conference on intellectual property.
Standards and competition policy EU-China Workshop on Application of Anti-monopoly Law in Intellectual Property Area Changsha, 11. – 12. March 2010 Peter.
Sangmin Song, Director, Anti-Monopoly Div., KFTC MRFTA & IP Rights 1.
Class 24: Finish Remedies, then Subject Matter Patent Law Spring 2007 Professor Petherbridge.
Patent Enforcement & Forum Shopping in China Liu, Shen & Associates: Jun Qiu September 2014.
EU-China Workshop on the Chinese Patent Law 24/25 September 2008 Topic IV: Legal Consequences of Invalidity of a Patent Prof. Dr. Christian Osterrieth.
TORTS: A CIVIL WRONG Chapter 18. TORTS: A CIVIL WRONG Under criminal law, wrongs committed are called crimes. Under civil law, wrongs committed are called.
Litigation for Patent Infringement Prof. Dr. Christian Osterrieth China 25 September 2008.
Compulsory Licence Defence in Patent Infringement Proceedings presented at the 2009 International Conference on Judicial Protection of IPR 11 September.
Competition Law and Cellphone Patents
Consequences of the Huawei decision for licensing practices
International Conference on Judicial Protection of IPR
Patent law update.
International Conference on Judicial Protection of IPR
Update on IP and Antitrust
Calculation of Damages in Korean Patent Litigation
Presentation transcript:

IPRs and Standards - Balancing Interests of Licensors and Licensees Claudia Tapia Research In Motion 14. October 2009

 TRYING TO ENTER GSM STANDARD THREAT OF INJUNCTION  DILEMMA LICENSEE NEW ENTRANT Potential Licensee reasonable = 1% Licensor reasonable = 3% To avoid injunction Pay more than 1% Hope court finds abuse of dominant position and rejects injunction (Art. 82 EC, 19 GWB) Not to pay

Ref.: German Federal Supreme Court, BGH, Orange Book Standard 05 May 2009, KZR 39/06  COMPULSORY LICENSE DEFENSE under cartel law against the patent owner’s request for injunctive relief is POSSIBLE  PREREQUISITES: BGH – Orange Book Standard case make an unconditional offer to license under reasonable terms which could not be rejected by the proprietor of the patent without committing an abusive conduct under cartel law, and pay the reasonable royalty to the patentee or deposit it into an escrow account for the time the potential licensee uses or has used the technology covered by the patent without a license

 Licensee may make unconditional offer of concrete percentage  Licensee thinks 1% is ‚reasonable‘  DILEMMA  COURT allows Licensee: unconditional offer to conclude a license agreement  the patentee determines the amount of royalties according to his own reasonable discretion BGH – Orange Book Standard case He offers 1% Court says ‚reasonable‘ is 1,5% No compulsory license He offers 1,5%Licensor accepts itLicensee bounded

 Ideally Licensee pays the amount calculated by licensor  COURT: payment or deposit of a ‘sufficient royalty’  What is ‘sufficient’? Sufficient = ‘reasonable’? BGH – Orange Book Standard case But, What if the licensor asks for unreasonable rates according to Y, e.g. 10%? Deposit, waiving the right of withdrawal, if: 1. Patentee is not willing to accept the offered payment or 2. Patentee willing to accept it but not to license

Deposit 1,5% Court determines ‚reasonable‘ rate, e.g. 1% Possible to get some money (e.g. 0,5%) back Licensee ask court examine if licensor has determined rate at his reasonably exercised discretion (Sec. 315 CC) BGH – Orange Book Standard case SUGGESTION Assuming Y thinks 10% is not reasonable If comparable cases Deposit comparable amount If no comparable cases Deposit slighly higher amount WAIVING RIGHT OF WITHDRAWAL

BGH – Orange Book Standard case CONSEQUENCES IN THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IF WELL-FOUNDED COMPULSORY LICENSE 1. A claim of injunctive relief  rejected by the court 2. Claim compensation for damages After receiving the adequate offer  ‘reasonable license fee’ to be paid in the future Before receving adequate offer  damages for the use of the patent infringed during this time 3. ‘Financial accounting’: Licensee must: Account for the use on a regular basis Pay the royalties resulting from his accounts to the patent owner