FRAND Cases in Context

Edited by Jorge L. Contreras, Distinguished University Professor and James T. Jensen Endowed Professor for Transactional Law, University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law, USA

• ContentsList of contributors viiiForeword xiiPreface and acknowledgements xivIntroduction to FRAND Cases in Context: Standards, Patents, andFRAND xviJorge L. ContrerasPART I FRAND ROYALTY DETERMINATIONSIntroduction to Part I: FRAND royalty determinations 2Jorge L. Contreras1 Microsoft v. Motorola: calculating a RAND royalty 5Norman V. Siebrasse2 Samsung v. Apple (Japan): top-down royalty calculations 28Christoph Rademacher3 Ericsson v. D-Link: evidence-based analysis of reasonableroyalties and patent hold-up 43Adam Mossoff4 CSIRO v. Cisco: convergence of RAND and non-RANDroyalties 53Jorge L. Contreras5 Unwired Planet v. Huawei: establishing UK jurisprudence ofFRAND 61Jorge L. Contreras6 Unwired Planet v Huawei: global rate setting begins in the UK 79Enrico Bonadio and Mahak Kansara7 TCL v. Ericsson: top-down royalty calculations and juryverdicts in US FRAND cases 96Brian J. Love8 Advanced Codec Technology, LLC v. Guangdong OppoMobile Telecommunications Co., Ltd.: first substantivedetermination of FRAND license fee by the Chinese SupremePeople’s Court 116Yuan Hao9 Sharp v. Oppo: global rate setting in China 132Le Ma10 InterDigital v Lenovo: FRAND rates between mutuallyunwilling parties 145Robin Jacob and Dheemanth VangimallaPART II PRODUCT INJUNCTIONSIntroduction to Part II: product injunctions 166Jorge L. Contreras11 In re Motorola Mobility LLC Google: FRAND, injunctions,and unfair competition 168Bernard Chao12 Apple v. Motorola: admissibility of expert testimony onroyalties; injunctive relief 180Thomas F. Cotter13 Apple v. Samsung: standards essential patents at the U.S.International Trade Commission 196Barbara Lauriat14 Huawei v. ZTE: the competition law choreography ofEuropean FRAND injunctions 206Peter Picht15 Sony v. Iwncomm: the first Chinese FRAND injunction in thewake of China’s go-it-alone standardisation policy 219Chung-Lun Shen16 Sisvel v. Haier: the trajectory of injunctions in Europe 234Peter R. Slowinski17 Ericsson v. Apple: South America enters the injunction race 252Juan C. Contreras18 Optis v. Apple: the injunction bargain in the UK 265Amandine LéonardPART III ANTITRUST, COMPETITION LAW AND FRANDIntroduction to Part III: antitrust, competition law and FRAND 285Jorge L. Contreras19 Korea Fair Trade Commission v. Qualcomm: internationalcompetition enforcement against FRAND violations 286Sang Jo Jong20 Intex v Ericsson: the intersection of FRAND and competitionlaw in India 297Enrico Bonadio and Mahak Kansara21 FTC v. Qualcomm: the difficult path for antitrust FRANDchallenges in the US 315Michael A. CarrierPART IV JURISDICTIONAL CONFLICT AND ANTI-SUITINJUNCTIONSIntroduction to Part IV: jurisdictional conflict and anti-suit injunctions 333Jorge L. Contreras22 Huawei v. Conversant: anti-suit injunctions in China: aresponse in-kind to the west 335Jyh-An Lee23 Ericsson v. Samsung: dueling anti-suit injunctions 344Jorge L. Contreras24 Ericsson v. Apple: the pre-emptive anti-anti-suit injunction 356Lisa van Dongen25 Lenovo v. IPCom: jurisdictional conflict and the approach toanti-suit injunctions in the European Union 373Amandine Léonard26 InterDigital v. Xiaomi (Germany): jurisdictional conflict andthe German approach 387Christoph Rademacher27 Panasonic v. Xiaomi: the UK interim license 394Jorge L. Contreras28 SEP-related disputes between the EU and China at the WTO 404Rafał Sikorski

‘The name Jorge L. Contreras will be familiar to many in the field of SEPs, and hopefully, it will become more familiar to many more soon. Having already delivered several highly appreciated books and papers on the topic, Jorge and his colleagues not only have put together a highly useful collection of summarized landmark legal cases - high quality, concise, structured, and accessible to diverse audiences - but also provided overall context and understanding along major themes like FRAND determination, injunction, antitrust, and jurisdictional conflicts. Highly recommended!’