The document discusses a court case involving Innovatio IP Ventures LLC suing wireless network users over patents related to the IEEE 802.11 wireless standard. The court evaluated potential damages and determined a RAND rate of 9.56 cents per Wi-Fi chip used. The court considered factors like the importance of the patented technologies to the standard, availability of alternatives, and comparable licensing rates to determine the appropriate RAND rate for standard essential patents.
The document discusses FRAND licensing royalty disputes for standard essential patents (SEPs). It summarizes the main causes of disputes, including whether the royalty should be based on the ex post value of SEPs or the incremental value of adopting the standard over alternatives at the time of standard specification. It also discusses arguments made by Motorola, Apple, Qualcomm, Cisco and HP regarding the appropriate FRAND royalty base.
the connected car market glows, LTE is becoming the main connectivity technology not only for the V2X (vehicle-to-vehicle, vehicle-to-person, vehicle-to- roadside unit) communications but also for providing value added services (e.g., infotainment). For example, the 2015 Audi A3 LTE connectivity service includes navigation with Google Earth and Street View, weather and event information. Thus, one may expect that the increasing use of LTE can make the automotive sector a new patent dispute battleground.
Com4Innov is a configurable and stand-alone testbed, with unique resources and technical expertise, to develop, test or validate next generation mobile, wireless, and Internet of Things technologies, solutions & services. Com4Innov set-up includes a full-scale 4G/LTE/WIFI Calling access network, an IMS/RCS applicative infrastructure and services, M2M/IoT sensors and applications components, the latest LTE & IMS user equipment, measurement and simulation tools, remote SIM Cards services and 3GPP compliant preparing 5G implementation
This document discusses strategies for monetizing standard essential patents (SEPs). It provides guidelines from court cases for calculating FRAND royalty rates for SEPs. It also analyzes several companies' SEP portfolios and estimates the potential licensing revenue from 4G LTE SEPs. Key points include:
1) Courts have provided that FRAND royalties should consider an SEP holder's proportion of patents relative to the total number of SEPs for a standard.
2) Analysis estimates the NPE share of LTE SEPs could yield over $1 billion per year in licensing revenue based on the US market.
3) Samsung's share of LTE SEPs is estimated to generate around $3
ITAM UK 2017 Software Maintenance Issues_Guy TrittonMartin Thompson
The document discusses legal issues for third-party software maintenance providers. It covers that licenses and copyright can be breached through non-payment of fees or unauthorized copying. The Computer Software Directive restricts certain acts without permission. Courts will interpret license terms based on common understanding and aim of agreement. A case found that increasing access through new methods still required being a named user. Third parties can perform maintenance as agents if the licensee is allowed the acts. Providers must act within license restrictions such as not copying software without permission. Access to fixes may depend on the license or maintenance agreement. Competition issues can arise if access is denied to create an unfair advantage.
This document summarizes a breach of contract action between Microsoft and Motorola regarding Motorola's obligations to license standard essential patents on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms. It discusses decisions made in the case so far, including that Motorola had a binding obligation to license its declared essential patents on RAND terms and that Microsoft is a third party beneficiary. It also summarizes the court's findings on an appropriate framework for determining RAND royalty rates and analysis.
In this short presentation, I define standard essential patents and RAND using the Wi-Fi standard as an example.
Beyond a basic definition, however, this presentation touches on the practical ramifications (both at a legal and corporate/financial level) that may lead to the current, ongoing SEP-related court cases.
The OSGi Residential Expert Group is working on several new specifications. They have completed an RFP on a ZigBee API and are working on RFPs for a device abstraction layer, USB device categories, resource monitoring, and a network interface information service. The group's process involves documenting requirements, approving them, then developing RFCs and specifications along with reference implementations and tests. They aim to have initial specifications ready by mid-2013 and finalized specifications released in early 2014.
The document discusses FRAND licensing royalty disputes for standard essential patents (SEPs). It summarizes the main causes of disputes, including whether the royalty should be based on the ex post value of SEPs or the incremental value of adopting the standard over alternatives at the time of standard specification. It also discusses arguments made by Motorola, Apple, Qualcomm, Cisco and HP regarding the appropriate FRAND royalty base.
the connected car market glows, LTE is becoming the main connectivity technology not only for the V2X (vehicle-to-vehicle, vehicle-to-person, vehicle-to- roadside unit) communications but also for providing value added services (e.g., infotainment). For example, the 2015 Audi A3 LTE connectivity service includes navigation with Google Earth and Street View, weather and event information. Thus, one may expect that the increasing use of LTE can make the automotive sector a new patent dispute battleground.
Com4Innov is a configurable and stand-alone testbed, with unique resources and technical expertise, to develop, test or validate next generation mobile, wireless, and Internet of Things technologies, solutions & services. Com4Innov set-up includes a full-scale 4G/LTE/WIFI Calling access network, an IMS/RCS applicative infrastructure and services, M2M/IoT sensors and applications components, the latest LTE & IMS user equipment, measurement and simulation tools, remote SIM Cards services and 3GPP compliant preparing 5G implementation
This document discusses strategies for monetizing standard essential patents (SEPs). It provides guidelines from court cases for calculating FRAND royalty rates for SEPs. It also analyzes several companies' SEP portfolios and estimates the potential licensing revenue from 4G LTE SEPs. Key points include:
1) Courts have provided that FRAND royalties should consider an SEP holder's proportion of patents relative to the total number of SEPs for a standard.
2) Analysis estimates the NPE share of LTE SEPs could yield over $1 billion per year in licensing revenue based on the US market.
3) Samsung's share of LTE SEPs is estimated to generate around $3
ITAM UK 2017 Software Maintenance Issues_Guy TrittonMartin Thompson
The document discusses legal issues for third-party software maintenance providers. It covers that licenses and copyright can be breached through non-payment of fees or unauthorized copying. The Computer Software Directive restricts certain acts without permission. Courts will interpret license terms based on common understanding and aim of agreement. A case found that increasing access through new methods still required being a named user. Third parties can perform maintenance as agents if the licensee is allowed the acts. Providers must act within license restrictions such as not copying software without permission. Access to fixes may depend on the license or maintenance agreement. Competition issues can arise if access is denied to create an unfair advantage.
This document summarizes a breach of contract action between Microsoft and Motorola regarding Motorola's obligations to license standard essential patents on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms. It discusses decisions made in the case so far, including that Motorola had a binding obligation to license its declared essential patents on RAND terms and that Microsoft is a third party beneficiary. It also summarizes the court's findings on an appropriate framework for determining RAND royalty rates and analysis.
In this short presentation, I define standard essential patents and RAND using the Wi-Fi standard as an example.
Beyond a basic definition, however, this presentation touches on the practical ramifications (both at a legal and corporate/financial level) that may lead to the current, ongoing SEP-related court cases.
The OSGi Residential Expert Group is working on several new specifications. They have completed an RFP on a ZigBee API and are working on RFPs for a device abstraction layer, USB device categories, resource monitoring, and a network interface information service. The group's process involves documenting requirements, approving them, then developing RFCs and specifications along with reference implementations and tests. They aim to have initial specifications ready by mid-2013 and finalized specifications released in early 2014.
Prepare Your Products for Successful Wireless Device EMC TestingNorthwest EMC
Ready to bring new wireless products to market? Not without testing. Here, EMC tester Northwest EMC helps you prepare your products for successful wireless device testing.
Get more information about wireless EMC testing at www.nwemc.com
The document discusses wireless standard essential patents and related issues and strategies. It covers the following topics:
1. What constitutes a standard essential patent and examples of essentiality analysis.
2. Dilemmas around standard essential patents for the US patent system, including debates around patent trolls and smartphone patent litigation. Holding standard essential patents can give market power.
3. Details on the growing LTE patent pool and major holders of LTE standard essential patents.
IP Outsourcing Problems... Tanenbaum, wtanenbaum@kayescholer.com Kaye Schole...William Tanenbaum
This document discusses 10 common intellectual property issues that can arise in information technology outsourcing and cloud computing arrangements. These issues include determining ownership of work product, properly assigning intellectual property rights, managing joint ownership of collaborative work, ensuring appropriate scope of licensing rights, crafting effective indemnification provisions, and protecting customer information and data. The document provides analysis and potential solutions for addressing each issue.
This document provides guidance on avoiding procuring intellectual property (IP) when doing procurement. It discusses:
1) Different IP rights that can apply simultaneously, such as patents, copyrights, and trademarks.
2) Using agreements as an "early warning system" to specify deliverables, IP ownership, and audit rights to prevent issues around customized work and subcontractors.
3) Recommendations for indemnities, damages, joint IP ownership, and protecting customer IP in outsourcing and cloud computing arrangements.
The Role of Claims Construction in Patent Valuationipspat
This document discusses the role of claims construction in patent valuation. It begins by outlining various contexts in which patent valuation is relevant, such as M&A transactions, licensing deals, and litigation. It then discusses challenges in valuing patents due to lack of trading markets and variability in deal terms and conditions. The document outlines the three main valuation methodologies - cost, market, and income approaches - and discusses patent-specific methods like the 25% rule, industry standards, rating/ranking, and real options analysis. It emphasizes that claims construction is important for determining the scope of patent rights being valued.
The Role of Claims Construction in Patent Valuationipspat
The document discusses various methods for patent valuation, including transaction-based, litigation-based, and accounting-based contexts. It describes common valuation methodologies like cost, market, and income approaches. Specific IP valuation methods are also covered, such as rules of thumb, industry standards, rating/ranking, and real options analysis. The role of claims construction in valuation is that future methods may better value patents based on the exclusionary scope defined by the claims.
I have helped more than 100 customers build new and innovative services for their customers with the help of IoT technology. With this slides, I share the lessons learned working with these customers as they start a journey into improved digitalization. My focus is on IT operations and project management.
This presentation by Anne Layne-Farrar from Charles River Associates was made during a roundtable discussion on Competition, Intellectual Property and Standard Setting held at the 122nd meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 17 December 2014. Find out more at http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/competition-intellectual-property-standard-setting.htm
The document outlines the life cycle of intellectual property (IP) providers and the semiconductor industry. It discusses the trends driving consolidation in the industry, including rising costs of chip design that favor larger players. It also covers topics like growing use of third-party IP, the realities for small IP providers, patenting strategies, patent wars between companies, and the typical acquisition timelines and sizes for IP providers.
Presentation delivered during 9th Seminar on Media and the Digital Economy (21-22 March 2019).
http://fsr.eui.eu/event/annual-scientific-seminar-on-media-and-the-digital-economy-9th-edition/
The document discusses 5G networks and Internet of Things (IoT) architecture. For 5G, it describes the key requirements of ultra-high radio speed, ultra-low latency, and massive connectivity. This will require redefining cloud-RAN/fronthaul architecture with distributed 5G cores and packet-based fronthaul to handle high traffic loads. For IoT, it discusses the growth of the market and challenges around standards, security and privacy, and monetization. It provides an overview of key platform architectures from Microsoft, AWS, and Google for IoT. The biggest challenge remains developing solutions that can scale to handle the massive number of IoT devices connecting to 5G networks.
The document discusses the Optical Internetworking Forum's (OIF) work to promote interoperability in optical networks through implementation agreements, interoperability demonstrations, and a new certification program. It summarizes the OIF's past interop demonstrations testing SDN architectures and interfaces like Transport API. It then outlines the OIF's upcoming 2016 demo testing the ONF's Transport API and plans for a new certification program starting with optical control plane UNI interoperability. The certification aims to bridge the gap between standards and commercial products and provide a market advantage for compliant implementations.
As the connected car market glows, LTE is becoming the main connectivity technology not only for the V2X (vehicle-to-vehicle, vehicle-to-person, vehicle-to- roadside unit) communications but also for providing value added services (e.g., infotainment).For example, the 2015 Audi A3 LTE connectivity service includes navigation with Google Earth and Street View, weather and event information. Thus, one may expect that the increasing use of LTE can make the automotive sector a new patent dispute battleground
TechIPm LLC provides various patent monetization and management services including strategic patent portfolio development, standard essential patent evaluation and development, strategic patent acquisition, and strategic patent licensing program development. The company helps clients identify valuable patents, develop patent claims, evaluate standard essential patent candidates, acquire strategic patents, and establish profitable patent licensing programs. TechIPm also provides commercialization consulting services to help clients develop new business models and ecosystems based on their intellectual property.
Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind such as inventions, artistic works, and symbols. There are several types of intellectual property including patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and designs. Technology licensing involves an agreement where one party receives the right to use another party's intellectual property in exchange for compensation. Key components of technology licensing agreements include defining the licensed intellectual property, payment terms, rights to improvements, provisions for transferring or terminating the agreement, and resolving disputes.
Recent Developments in Proving Damages in Intellectual Property DisputesParsons Behle & Latimer
The document summarizes a presentation given on November 13, 2014 in Salt Lake City, Utah on intellectual property damages. The presentation covered trends in patent damages after the Uniloc case, new approaches to calculating patent damages, recent developments in trademark damages awards, recent decisions on proving copyright damages, and alternative theories for trade secret damages cases. It provided details on methodologies for calculating lost profits and reasonable royalties in patent cases, challenges in applying the entire market value rule, proving non-infringing alternatives, and issues relating to foreign sales and the Nash bargaining solution in damages analyses.
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland provides solutions to overcome major challenges in wireless access and communication systems, such as increasing capacity demands and energy consumption. They offer expertise in radio systems, hardware and software performance, smart antennas, and security. Their services include research, prototyping, testing, and commercialization of intellectual property to support technologies like 5G, LTE, WiFi and beyond.
Software & Patenting: IP Outside Your Comfort ZoneBen Hoyle
A presentation given as a CIPA Webinar on 25 February 2014.
Provides an introduction to software as it relates to patenting and an overview of current practice in UK and Europe. Details of relevant legislation and case law are provided, together with some tips for drafting.
Provided according to the terms set out here: http://www.eip.com/legal.php - i.e. does not constitute legal advice and should be taken as guidance.
This document briefly explains the June compliance calendar 2024 with income tax returns, PF, ESI, and important due dates, forms to be filled out, periods, and who should file them?.
More Related Content
Similar to Dr Irene kafeza patents in wi fi standards
Prepare Your Products for Successful Wireless Device EMC TestingNorthwest EMC
Ready to bring new wireless products to market? Not without testing. Here, EMC tester Northwest EMC helps you prepare your products for successful wireless device testing.
Get more information about wireless EMC testing at www.nwemc.com
The document discusses wireless standard essential patents and related issues and strategies. It covers the following topics:
1. What constitutes a standard essential patent and examples of essentiality analysis.
2. Dilemmas around standard essential patents for the US patent system, including debates around patent trolls and smartphone patent litigation. Holding standard essential patents can give market power.
3. Details on the growing LTE patent pool and major holders of LTE standard essential patents.
IP Outsourcing Problems... Tanenbaum, wtanenbaum@kayescholer.com Kaye Schole...William Tanenbaum
This document discusses 10 common intellectual property issues that can arise in information technology outsourcing and cloud computing arrangements. These issues include determining ownership of work product, properly assigning intellectual property rights, managing joint ownership of collaborative work, ensuring appropriate scope of licensing rights, crafting effective indemnification provisions, and protecting customer information and data. The document provides analysis and potential solutions for addressing each issue.
This document provides guidance on avoiding procuring intellectual property (IP) when doing procurement. It discusses:
1) Different IP rights that can apply simultaneously, such as patents, copyrights, and trademarks.
2) Using agreements as an "early warning system" to specify deliverables, IP ownership, and audit rights to prevent issues around customized work and subcontractors.
3) Recommendations for indemnities, damages, joint IP ownership, and protecting customer IP in outsourcing and cloud computing arrangements.
The Role of Claims Construction in Patent Valuationipspat
This document discusses the role of claims construction in patent valuation. It begins by outlining various contexts in which patent valuation is relevant, such as M&A transactions, licensing deals, and litigation. It then discusses challenges in valuing patents due to lack of trading markets and variability in deal terms and conditions. The document outlines the three main valuation methodologies - cost, market, and income approaches - and discusses patent-specific methods like the 25% rule, industry standards, rating/ranking, and real options analysis. It emphasizes that claims construction is important for determining the scope of patent rights being valued.
The Role of Claims Construction in Patent Valuationipspat
The document discusses various methods for patent valuation, including transaction-based, litigation-based, and accounting-based contexts. It describes common valuation methodologies like cost, market, and income approaches. Specific IP valuation methods are also covered, such as rules of thumb, industry standards, rating/ranking, and real options analysis. The role of claims construction in valuation is that future methods may better value patents based on the exclusionary scope defined by the claims.
I have helped more than 100 customers build new and innovative services for their customers with the help of IoT technology. With this slides, I share the lessons learned working with these customers as they start a journey into improved digitalization. My focus is on IT operations and project management.
This presentation by Anne Layne-Farrar from Charles River Associates was made during a roundtable discussion on Competition, Intellectual Property and Standard Setting held at the 122nd meeting of the OECD Competition Committee on 17 December 2014. Find out more at http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/competition-intellectual-property-standard-setting.htm
The document outlines the life cycle of intellectual property (IP) providers and the semiconductor industry. It discusses the trends driving consolidation in the industry, including rising costs of chip design that favor larger players. It also covers topics like growing use of third-party IP, the realities for small IP providers, patenting strategies, patent wars between companies, and the typical acquisition timelines and sizes for IP providers.
Presentation delivered during 9th Seminar on Media and the Digital Economy (21-22 March 2019).
http://fsr.eui.eu/event/annual-scientific-seminar-on-media-and-the-digital-economy-9th-edition/
The document discusses 5G networks and Internet of Things (IoT) architecture. For 5G, it describes the key requirements of ultra-high radio speed, ultra-low latency, and massive connectivity. This will require redefining cloud-RAN/fronthaul architecture with distributed 5G cores and packet-based fronthaul to handle high traffic loads. For IoT, it discusses the growth of the market and challenges around standards, security and privacy, and monetization. It provides an overview of key platform architectures from Microsoft, AWS, and Google for IoT. The biggest challenge remains developing solutions that can scale to handle the massive number of IoT devices connecting to 5G networks.
The document discusses the Optical Internetworking Forum's (OIF) work to promote interoperability in optical networks through implementation agreements, interoperability demonstrations, and a new certification program. It summarizes the OIF's past interop demonstrations testing SDN architectures and interfaces like Transport API. It then outlines the OIF's upcoming 2016 demo testing the ONF's Transport API and plans for a new certification program starting with optical control plane UNI interoperability. The certification aims to bridge the gap between standards and commercial products and provide a market advantage for compliant implementations.
As the connected car market glows, LTE is becoming the main connectivity technology not only for the V2X (vehicle-to-vehicle, vehicle-to-person, vehicle-to- roadside unit) communications but also for providing value added services (e.g., infotainment).For example, the 2015 Audi A3 LTE connectivity service includes navigation with Google Earth and Street View, weather and event information. Thus, one may expect that the increasing use of LTE can make the automotive sector a new patent dispute battleground
TechIPm LLC provides various patent monetization and management services including strategic patent portfolio development, standard essential patent evaluation and development, strategic patent acquisition, and strategic patent licensing program development. The company helps clients identify valuable patents, develop patent claims, evaluate standard essential patent candidates, acquire strategic patents, and establish profitable patent licensing programs. TechIPm also provides commercialization consulting services to help clients develop new business models and ecosystems based on their intellectual property.
Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind such as inventions, artistic works, and symbols. There are several types of intellectual property including patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and designs. Technology licensing involves an agreement where one party receives the right to use another party's intellectual property in exchange for compensation. Key components of technology licensing agreements include defining the licensed intellectual property, payment terms, rights to improvements, provisions for transferring or terminating the agreement, and resolving disputes.
Recent Developments in Proving Damages in Intellectual Property DisputesParsons Behle & Latimer
The document summarizes a presentation given on November 13, 2014 in Salt Lake City, Utah on intellectual property damages. The presentation covered trends in patent damages after the Uniloc case, new approaches to calculating patent damages, recent developments in trademark damages awards, recent decisions on proving copyright damages, and alternative theories for trade secret damages cases. It provided details on methodologies for calculating lost profits and reasonable royalties in patent cases, challenges in applying the entire market value rule, proving non-infringing alternatives, and issues relating to foreign sales and the Nash bargaining solution in damages analyses.
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland provides solutions to overcome major challenges in wireless access and communication systems, such as increasing capacity demands and energy consumption. They offer expertise in radio systems, hardware and software performance, smart antennas, and security. Their services include research, prototyping, testing, and commercialization of intellectual property to support technologies like 5G, LTE, WiFi and beyond.
Software & Patenting: IP Outside Your Comfort ZoneBen Hoyle
A presentation given as a CIPA Webinar on 25 February 2014.
Provides an introduction to software as it relates to patenting and an overview of current practice in UK and Europe. Details of relevant legislation and case law are provided, together with some tips for drafting.
Provided according to the terms set out here: http://www.eip.com/legal.php - i.e. does not constitute legal advice and should be taken as guidance.
Similar to Dr Irene kafeza patents in wi fi standards (20)
This document briefly explains the June compliance calendar 2024 with income tax returns, PF, ESI, and important due dates, forms to be filled out, periods, and who should file them?.
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...lawyersonia
The legal profession, which has historically been male-dominated, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women entering the field over the past few decades. Despite this progress, women lawyers continue to encounter various challenges as they strive for top positions.
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentationseri bangash
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
Receivership and liquidation Accounts
Being a Paper Presented at Business Recovery and Insolvency Practitioners Association of Nigeria (BRIPAN) on Friday, August 18, 2023.
Business law for the students of undergraduate level. The presentation contains the summary of all the chapters under the syllabus of State University, Contract Act, Sale of Goods Act, Negotiable Instrument Act, Partnership Act, Limited Liability Act, Consumer Protection Act.
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordinary And Special Businesses And Ordinary And Special Resolutions with Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations, 2018
Matthew Professional CV experienced Government LiaisonMattGardner52
As an experienced Government Liaison, I have demonstrated expertise in Corporate Governance. My skill set includes senior-level management in Contract Management, Legal Support, and Diplomatic Relations. I have also gained proficiency as a Corporate Liaison, utilizing my strong background in accounting, finance, and legal, with a Bachelor's degree (B.A.) from California State University. My Administrative Skills further strengthen my ability to contribute to the growth and success of any organization.
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...Sangyun Lee
Presentation slides for a session held on June 4, 2024, at Kyoto University. This presentation is based on the presenter’s recent paper, coauthored with Hwang Lee, Professor, Korea University, with the same title, published in the Journal of Business Administration & Law, Volume 34, No. 2 (April 2024). The paper, written in Korean, is available at <https://shorturl.at/GCWcI>.
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxMasoudZamani13
Excited to share insights from my recent presentation on genocide! 💡 In light of ongoing debates, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of this grave crime.
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdfveteranlegal
https://veteranlegal.in/defense-lawyer-in-india/ | Criminal defense Lawyer in India has always been a vital aspect of the country's legal system. As defenders of justice, criminal Defense Lawyer play a critical role in ensuring that individuals accused of crimes receive a fair trial and that their constitutional rights are protected. As India evolves socially, economically, and technologically, the role and future of criminal Defense Lawyer are also undergoing significant changes. This comprehensive blog explores the current landscape, challenges, technological advancements, and prospects for criminal Defense Lawyer in India.
2. Innovatio case
• Innovatio IP Ventures LLC (“Innovatio”) sued
wireless network users -23 patents
• Device Manufactures declaratory judgment
– products do not infringe patents
– patents not valid
• Evaluate potential damages: Court
methodology for possibility of settlement
3. Innovatio case
• Damages: Related to IEEE 802.11 wireless standard
• Prior owners contract IEEE license SEPs of 802.11
on RAND recovery limited to RAND licensing fee.
• Parties Agreed: patent claims were essential to
practice 802.11 standard (essentiality: IEEE
bylaws)subject to RAND obligation
4. Innovatio case
• Parties agreed at trial: RAND rate only for
Manufacturers
• Court decided: RAND rate for SEPs violating
802.11 =9.56 cents for each Wi-Fi chip used or
sold
• 19 patents. 4 patents in Innovatio’s Mesh
family patents were not considered for RAND
rate dermination
5. Innovatio case
• Patent hold-up: “If one particular company owns a
patent covering that technology,
however, the standard will effectively force all others to
buy that company's
technology if they want to practice the standard.”
(Innovatio IP Ventures, 2013 WL 3874042, at 3)
• Prior patent Owners agreed on RAND license with IEEE-
Biding contractual commitments
• Binding on Innovatio
• Defendants are potential users of 802.11 thus third
parties beneficiaries
6. • Judge Robart’s methodology for RAND rate Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. C10-1823, 2013
WL 2111217 (W.D. Wash. Apr.25, 2013)
• Based in Georgia-Pacific factors to determine the outcome of a
hypothetical negotiation
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. US. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)
15 factors:
• G-P Factor 1: The royalties received by the patentee for the licensing of
the patent-in-suit in other circumstances comparable to RAND-licensing
circumstances.
• G-P Factor 2: The rates paid by the licensee for the use of other patents
comparable to the patent-in-suit.
• G-P Factor 3: The nature and scope of the license.
• G-P Factor 6: The effect of the patented invention in promoting sales of
other products of the licensee and the licensor, taking into account only
the value of the patented technology and not the value associated with
incorporating the patented technology into the standard.
• G-P Factor 8: The established profitability of the product made under the
patent, its commercial success, and its current popularity, taking into
account only the value of the patented technology and not the value
associated with incorporating the patented technology into the standard.
7. • G-P Factor 9: The utility and advantages of the patent property over
alternatives that could have been written into the standard instead of the
patented technology in the period before the standard was adopted.
• G-P Factors 10-11: The contribution of the patent to the technical
capabilities of the standard and also the contribution of those relevant
technical capabilities to the licensee and the licensee's products, taking
into account only the value of the patented technology and not the value
associated with incorporating the patented technology into the standard.
• G-P Factor 12: The portion of the profit or of the selling price that may be
customary in the particular business or in comparable businesses to allow
for the use of the invention or analogous inventions that are also covered
by RAND committed patents.
• G-P Factor 13: The portion of the realizable profit that should be credited
to the invention as distinguished from non-patented elements, the
manufacturing process, business risks, significant features or
improvements added by the infringer, or the value of the patent's
incorporation into the standard.
• G-P Factor 14: The opinion testimony of qualified experts.
• G-P Factor 15: The amount that a licensor and a licensee would have
agreed upon the time the infringement began) if both were considering
the RAND commitment and its purposes, and had been reasonably and
voluntarily trying to reach an agreement.
8. Judge Robart’s three step
• Judge Robart’s three step methodology
– importance of the patent portfolio to the standard
(SEP proportion, patent portfolio technical
contribution as a whole to the standard)
– Contribution to optional portion /use of the
portion by the implementer little value
– Comparable patents
9. Innovatio case
• Judge Holderman
• the court will not adjust the RAND rate in light of pre-
litigation uncertainty about the essentiality of a given
patent.
• the court did not evaluate the importance of
Innovatio's patents to the accused products, but
instead the importance of Innovatio's patents to the
802.11 standard.
• Because: WiFi chip provide 802.11 functionality
10. RAND determination
• Avoiding Patent Hold-Up : the holder of a standard-essential patent
demands excess royalties after standard implementers are already
locked into using the standard
– Expensive to implement alternatives
– Not-profitable not to implement the standard
– Cost is transferred to the consumers
– Extraction of hold up value leaves the rest patent owners unable to
recover actual patent values
Therefore
• RAND rate must reflect the value of the underlying technology and
not hold-up value of standardization
Microsoft, 2013 WL 2111217
Another factor: ease of patent integration into the standard as a whole
11. Royalty Stacking
• “the court, to the extent possible, evaluate a
proposed RAND rate in the light of the total
royalties an implementer would have to pay to
practice the standard.”
• “The court cannot undertake a full technical
evaluation of the hundreds or thousands of
patents that sometimes comprise a standard”
12. Reverse hold up
• Use patented essential technology without
compensation to the patent owner under the excuse of
unreasonable rates
• Expensive litigation for patent owner
• No evidence that Innovatio offered to the
Manufacturers a licence
• “The question of whether a license offer complies with
the RAND obligation merely gives the parties one more
potential issue to contest. “
• “When the parties disagree over a RAND rate, they
may litigate the question, just as they may litigate any
issue related to liability for infringement”
13. Determining an Appropriate Royalty Base
Royalty base:
– percentage of the selling price of end-products with wireless
functionality (i.e. based on the percentage of the value of the laptop
due to Wi-Fi)or
– percentage of the price paid by the Manufacturers for each wireless
chip?
• Innovatio: approximately $3.39 per access point, $4.72 per laptop, up to
$16.17 per tablet, and up to $36.90 per inventory tracking device (such as
a bar code scanners)
• Manufacturers: royalty of between .72 cents and 3.09 cents per chip
Smallest salable patent-practicing unit?
– is the system including all of the end-product devices (Innovatio)
– all of the features of the 802.11 standard are "implemented" on the
Wi-Fi chip, which includes both hardware and software to run the
802.11 features of any device in which it is inserted
14. Determining an Appropriate Royalty Base
• Innovatio: Compute “WiFi feature factor”
• Example: Access Point 95% feature factor because
primary purpose is the provision of 802.11
functionality, 5% power.
• What about: Mounting bracket, Ethernet connection,
Cisco access point with “troubleshooting forensics for
faster interference
resolution and proactive action”
• Firewall with or without WiFi?
15. License Benchmark Rate
• Innovatio formula:
• Price of Product * WiFi feature Factor*0,6
licensing rate
• Objective: comparable licenses for other standard
essential patent portfolios
• Problem: avoided the entire market value rule
merely "by the use of a very small royalty rate”.
16. The importance of Innovatio’s Patents
to the 802.11 standard
Alternative Technologies (Factor 9)
-Parties disagree over patented alternatives
Manufacturers: Patent and public domain technology similarity drive
down prices in negotiation might drive royalty effectively to zero
Innovatio: no patent holder would accept a royalty that is effectively zero.
Court: “will consider patented alternatives, but will recognize that they
will not drive down the royalty in the hypothetical negotiation by as much
as technology in the public domain”.
Court will only consider technology that was considered by the standard-
setting body when determining whether there are alternatives to the
patented technology that could have been adopted into the standard.
17. Example: Sleep Family
• “Methods for allowing stations to conserve power by
operating in a powered-down state, but periodically waking
up to determine if there are messages waiting for them at the
access point
• [T]he 802.11 MAC layer includes a protocol for a power save
("PS") function that allows battery-powered stations to save
power by staying "asleep" and periodically "waking up" to
receive messages from an access point. The 802.11 standard
specifies that a station wakes up only to receive selected
beacons from an access point. The station remains awake if
the beacon indicates that the access point has a data message
for the station to receive, but otherwise goes back asleep and
wakes up only to receive the next scheduled beacon”.
• Beacon frame is one of the management frames in IEEE 802.11 based WLANs. It contains all the
information about the network. Beacon frames are transmitted periodically to announce the
presence of a wireless LAN (wikipedia)
18. • The use of the sleep function is optional to the 802.11 used by the vast majority of
the battery-operated devices.
• Essential feature for battery operated devices
• The Innovatio sleep family of patents cover a portion of the necessary technology
to implement the sleep mode functionality of the 802.11
• Testing alternatives to these patents e.g. the “Tymes Patent” issued 1991 before
802.11 adoption
– It was not submitted to the IEEE standards-setting body it is not a viable
alternative
– TDMA: was proposed in May 1991, but the adoption required significance
changes to the 802.1 standard and it was inefficient not a viable solution
Court Decision
• Inovatio's Sleep family patents are of moderate importance to the standard.
– sleep mode operation is optional, but it is significant to battery-operated
devices that must conserve power.
– No available alternatives at the time of standardization that would have
provided all of the functionality of Innovatio's patents.
– Innovatio's patents are not sufficient in themselves to cover all of the features
of 802.11 sleep mode, which includes many other technologies.
19. Comparable Licenses
• Comparable licenses to determine the RAND rate according to factors 1
and 2
• Innovatio's proposed comparable licenses calculated a royalty on the basis
of end product prices
– Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Proxim Inc., No. 01-801 (D. Del.). Symbol won a
jury verdict against Proxim finding that Proxim infringed Symbol's U.S.
Patent Nos. 5,029,183 and 5,479,441, two patents essential to the
power-saving features of the 802.11 standard. The jury awarded
Symbol a 6% royalty on sales of Proxim's 802.11 wireless bar code
scanners, amounting to a total of$22.9 million, plus interest. On July
28, 2004, the court denied Proxim's post-trial motions and affirmed the
jury award, but denied Symbol a 6% royalty payment on future
infringing sales. Shortly thereafter, Symbol and Proxim settled the
litigation in an agreement.
20. Comparable Licenses
•
Under the modified Georgia-Pacific factors, however, the court
should consider only licenses that arise out of circumstances comparable to
RAND licensing circumstances.
• There is no evidence that the jury in the Symbol-Proxim litigation was
aware of Proxim's RAND obligations when it determined its verdict, or that
it was instructed on the effect of the RAND obligation on the royalty
amount. Accordingly, there is no evidence that the Symbol-Proxim jury
verdict was based on RAND considerations.
• The parties' agreements merely indicate that Symbol valued the
consideration at a certain royalty rate, but did not actually calculate the
payment exchanged based on that royalty. The amount at which Symbol
valued a particular agreement is much less relevant to determining a RAND
royalty here than is the actual consideration exchanged.
21. Comparable Licenses
• Symbol/ LXE License
two licenses between Symbol and LXE, Inc., both granting LXE a license to
manufacture and sell its wearable and non-wearable barcode reader
• How many patents Symbol owned at the time?
• How valuable were Symbol’s 802.11 standard essential patents compared
to other patents in its portfolio that might read on to the licensed barcode
scanners?
• how many of Symbol's patents were 802.11 standard-essential, and how
many were non-standard-essential or related to other technologies?
“ The parties to a hypothetical negotiation would not consider the Symbol-
LXE license agreements without knowing what portion of the royalties in
those agreements were attributable to Symbol's 802.11 patents, and the
parties would not consider the Symbol-LXE agreements without that
information”
22. Dr. Leonard's "Bottom Up" Approach
• The hypothetical licensee in a 1997
negotiation would not pay more than the
amount to determine an alternative.
• In this case there are no alternatives
23. Dr. Leonard's "Top Down" Approach
• starts with the average price of a Wi-Fi chip
• average profit that a chipmaker earns on the sale of each chip
• Multiply it by the available profit on a chip by a
fraction calculated as the number of Innovatio's 802.11 standard-essential
patents, divided by the total number of 802.11 standard-essential patents.
• The profit margin on the sale of a chip for a chip manufacturer is the maximum
potential royalty
– the principle of non-discrimination
– and royalty stacking concerns in RAND licensing
• Considering the profit of the chip manufacturer on the chip, rather than the
profit margins of the Manufacturers on the accused products, is appropriate
because a RAND licensor such as Innovatio cannot discriminate between
licensees on the basis of their position in the market.
Thus, the RAND rate that the court determines here should be the same RAND
rate that Innovatio could charge to chip manufacturers on its patent portfolio.
24. Dr. Leonard's "Top Down" Approach
• If the royalty is excessive in comparison to a chip manufacturer's
profit margin on a chip, the royalty is too high.
• In the hypothetical negotiation, chip manufacturers facing a
demand for a royalty far outstripping their expected profit margin
would not agree to take a license on the patents, but would instead
exit the chip-making business
Moreover, when evaluating whether the total royalties on all 802.11
standard-essential patents are too high, royal stacking concerns
confirm that the court should guard against a potential royalty
exceeding the current profit margins for the chips
25. RAND determination
• The Price of a Wi-Fi Chip: averaging the price of a chip from 1997 through 2013
• The Chipmaker's Profit Margin on a Wi-Fi Chip: 12.1% as the profit margin on a Wi-
Fi chip
• The Total Number of 802.11 Standard-Essential Patents : 3000 802.11
standard-essential patents.
• Innovatio's patents are in the top 10% of all 802.11 standard-essential patents
• Average WiFi chip price (14,85) *profit margin (12,1%) average profit 1,80 on
each chip (total profit available to a chipmaker out of which to pay royalties for
intellectual property)
• 1,80* 84% ( the value attributable to the top 10% of 802.11 standard essential
patents)= 1.51 (the value attributable to the top 10% of all 802.11 standard-
essential patents.)
• 1.51*19/300 the pro-rata share of the value in the top 10% of all 802;11 standard
essential patents attributed to Innovatio’s 19 patent portfolio. =9.56 cents per Wi-
Fi chip RAND rate