- FRAND—patent pool administrator as party to proceedings and methodology used in essentiality review (Mitsubishi & Sisvel v Oneplus Technology and others)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
IP analysis: This action concerns patents which are alleged to be essential to the 3G and 4G telecommunications standards and infringed by the defendants. One of the claimants is Sisvel, who administer a patent pool for various patent holders. One of the defendants sought to have Sisvel dismissed from the claim, on the grounds that Sisvel had no right or standing to participate in any Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) trial that is based on the finding of a valid, essential and infringed patent owned by others. This was dismissed, on the basis that the court saw advantage in having a pool administrator as a party in a FRAND dispute, not least for disclosure, evidence and confidentiality purposes. The court reiterated the requirement for parties to disclose early on their methodology for arriving at royalty rates for FRAND terms. Written by Juliet Hibbert, counsel, at Kilburn & Strode LLP.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial