What is reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) patent licensing? (Part 2)

In 2013, Judge Robart broke new legal ground, modifying traditional Georgia-Pacific factors

This article is the second in a series on a rapidly-evolving area of patent law: determining the “reasonable and non-discriminatory” (RAND) royalty rate for licensing a standard-essential U.S. patent. Part 1 identified the key issues and underlying policy in setting the RAND royalty rate.

The first case in the United States to set the F/RAND patent royalty was Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., in the Western District of Washington. There, Microsoft brought an action in 2010 for declaratory judgment that Microsoft was a third-party beneficiary of Motorola’s RAND commitments to the IEEE and ITU for two groups of SEPs, and Motorola breached its contractual obligation to license those patents to Microsoft on RAND terms. The court determined as an initial matter in 2012 that Microsoft was a third-party beneficiary and therefore able to enforce the RAND promises that Motorola made. The parties agreed that the asserted claims were standard-essential, leaving the determination of the RAND royalty rate, and a RAND royalty range, within which RAND offers must lie or be presumptively non-RAND.

author image

Barry K. Shelton

Barry Shelton is a partner in Bracewell & Giuliani’s Austin office and co-chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property Litigation group. His practice focuses on patent litigation,...

Bio and more articles

author image

Conor M. Civins

Conor Civins is a partner in Bracewell & Giuliani’s Austin office focusing on both intellectual property litigation and complex commercial litigation. He has experience handling...

Bio and more articles

Join the Conversation

Advertisement. Closing in 15 seconds.