Motorola licenses standard-essential FRAND patents to Apple in Germany

Motorola licenses standard-essential FRAND patents to Apple in Germany
Late Monday, a filing was made with the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, that confirmed the licensing of Motorola Mobility standard-essential patents to Apple in Germany. The agreement covers an unannounced number of patents and the royalty rate is still up in the air, although it will be based on FRAND principles. Unless Apple and Motorola Mobility come to an agreement on percentages, the German court where the two have battled will have to reach a licensing figure. Motorola has been asking for a royalty rate of 2.25% of the retail price for devices using the patents covered in the agreement, which means that the final rate could come in a bit lower than that figure.

Following this agreement, Motorola Mobility will have to turn to its non standard-essential patents to use in German court against Apple. Right now, it has one such patent, covering push email notification, in litigation against the Cupertino based firm in the Country. What is interesting is a filing made by Apple earlier this month which stated that Motorola had no choice but to enter into this agreement with Apple. Apple's second amended antisuit complaint against Motorola Mobility dated August 3, 2012 stated that Motorola Mobility had an obligation to accept Apple's terms to license these FRAND patents to them or else be in violation of German antitrust law according to the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhest. But Apple's filing nearly a month ago, made no mention of Motorola Mobility's acceptance of the terms. Motorola answered the above filing on Monday by confirming the deal with Apple and adding that, as we knew, terms of the license will need to be worked out, most likely through litigation.

With Motorola Mobility being investigated by the FTC and the European Commission for allegedly abusing standard-essential patents agaist Apple and Microsoft, and with the prospect of facing a violation of German antitrust law, the company took the only feasible option it had left. Now, its only hope in Germany for its standard-essential IP portfolio is to work out a decent royalty package with Apple.

source: FOSSPatents

FEATURED VIDEO

47 Comments

1. MeoCao unregistered

Truce any1?

2. TheRetroReplay

Posts: 256; Member since: Mar 20, 2012

Looks like Motorola is pulling a Microsoft.

3. Aeires unregistered

On Apple. Who would have thought it would come full circle?

11. ardent1

Posts: 2000; Member since: Apr 16, 2011

Moto has to honor its agreements under the FRAND standards. If Moto had done this from day one, it would have save a number of headaches for everyone. To arbitrary charge a disproportionate royalty, Moto was asking for an investigation from the European and American authorities. When push comes to shove, Moto saw the light.

18. phitch

Posts: 214; Member since: Mar 06, 2012

Wrong! Yes, Moto had to honor it's agreements the reality is that Apple wanted a fair lower royalty pricing than other people licensing the patents and that is where the hang up occurred.

20. ardent1

Posts: 2000; Member since: Apr 16, 2011

> phitch You need to read the court documents. Moto was asking 2.25%.

36. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

you mean... Apple demanded special treatment and refused to pay until it got it!?! im flaberghasted!

4. MartyK

Posts: 1043; Member since: Apr 11, 2012

Oh yea, it's not over Apple...that was only for the FRAND- part. There's still 7 more patent you infringe on... Pay day! :)

5. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 2009

While Moto may have had to agree to license these patents, it was brought to Germany attention that Apple wasn't paying a single red cent in the first place. Nice to know that after years of lawsuits Apple finally agrees to pay something.

6. Mxyzptlk unregistered

Nice to know? How is it nice to pay to use a FRAND patent? That kills the purpose of it being fair and reasonable.

7. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 2009

Nice job completely misunderstanding the purpose of FRAND. Motorola can still get royalties for FRAND patents; there's just a limit on how much they can ask for. ... ... ... Duh.

8. Jobes

Posts: 364; Member since: Oct 27, 2011

He can't help it.

9. Sparhawk

Posts: 75; Member since: Mar 10, 2012

He's too busy messing with Superman to follow the FRAND stuff.

14. ardent1

Posts: 2000; Member since: Apr 16, 2011

Sniggly, it helps if you could read what was stated. You missed the "That kills the purpose of it being fair and reasonable."

16. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 2009

I read what was stated. And he was wrong. He said that Motorola being able to get royalties in the first place goes against FRAND. However, he didn't do his research on FRAND to begin with. Guess who has two thumbs and did? That's right, me.

22. ardent1

Posts: 2000; Member since: Apr 16, 2011

> He said that Motorola being able to get royalties in the first place goes against FRAND. Wrong. He said NO SUCH thing. Here's what he wrote: "Nice to know? How is it nice to pay to use a FRAND patent? That kills the purpose of it being fair and reasonable." He was commenting on Moto's obscene 2.25% rate.

26. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 2009

No he wasn't. He was commenting on the fact that there was a royalty to begin with. It's right there in the quote. "How is it nice to PAY TO USE [not pay TOO MUCH, not pay 2.25 PERCENT, but PAY TO BEGIN WITH] a FRAND patent?" Your reading comprehension sucks worse than Taco's.

33. ardent1

Posts: 2000; Member since: Apr 16, 2011

Sniggly, He was being sarcastic -- I'm sorry your ability to discern sarcasm isn't at the same level like the rest of us. Again, he never stated "He said that Motorola being able to get royalties in the first place goes against FRAND." You stated that. So yes, I read just fine.

43. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 2009

Wait, so now you get to assume that Mxy was being sarcastic? Look out, folks! We have a f**kin' psychic here! You'll do anything just to pretend to yourself that you're right, won't you?

37. jroc74

Posts: 6023; Member since: Dec 30, 2010

And ....you....seemed to miss what was stated: "How is it nice to pay to use a FRAND patent?" That specifically means he think you shouldnt have to pay. Cmon ardent....give it up. How many times are you gonna be obviously wrong before you give it up?

47. Mxyzptlk unregistered

It's not ethical to get royalties for a fair and reasonable patent. That would be like Burger King paying McDonald's royalties to make and sell hamburgers.

48. jroc74

Posts: 6023; Member since: Dec 30, 2010

Thank you for chiming in again that you dont think one should pay for FRAND patents. Please just look it up on wikipedia....it breaks it down very easily.

10. jroc74

Posts: 6023; Member since: Dec 30, 2010

Before you defend or argue against something....please know more about the subject. Last time I checked the F in FRAND doesnt mean Free. A quick Google search on FRAND broke it down nice and easy on Wikipedia.

13. ardent1

Posts: 2000; Member since: Apr 16, 2011

> Last time I checked the F in FRAND doesn't mean Free. A quick Google search on FRAND broke it down nice and easy on Wikipedia. Last time WE checked, F stands for FAIR. 2.25% wasn't fair. Nor was it REASONABLE AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY. Nor was Moto's FRAND related patents meant to be used to extort a company.

15. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 2009

You mean to defend against that other company's extortion, right? Because of course Apple's demand of 30 dollars per Samsung phone was reasonable, fair and non discriminatory. And that's for patents that an increasing amount of people are agreeing they shouldn't have to begin with. Motorola committed a tactical error, and although they had to retreat a little on this issue, they will still now get money they earned from Apple. In the meantime, they have a new set of patents lined up which don't fall under FRAND at all. Batter up!

25. ardent1

Posts: 2000; Member since: Apr 16, 2011

Sniggly, Get the facts. Apple's patents are not FRAND related. That is to say Apple's patents are not standards-essential and instead are utility or design patents. Any company can get around utility or design patent by inventing new patents. By construction, no company can get around standards-essential patents, thus the need for FRAND. IF Samsung didn't want to pay high royalties to Apple, then it should have out-invented Apple, which it chose not to do. This is NOT a hard concept to understand. If you want to beat Apple, out-invent them.

28. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 2009

And if you're Apple, just sue the s**t out of all of the competitors who are collectively doing better than you. And I like how you ignore the concept that the "obscene" 2.25 percent is really 13.50 per device.

21. phitch

Posts: 214; Member since: Mar 06, 2012

Actually 2.25% is perfectly reasonable to license all the FRAND patents that Apple hasn't been paying for. We are talking it covers all the patents Apple violated. $13.50 for a $600 phone is reasonable. Asking someone to pay $40 for a rectangle and bezel not so much. 'MERICA!

27. ardent1

Posts: 2000; Member since: Apr 16, 2011

> Actually 2.25% is perfectly reasonable to license all the FRAND patents that Apple hasn't been paying for. Except that is NOT what the courts decide. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not the courts.

24. joey_sfb

Posts: 6794; Member since: Mar 29, 2012

How is apple asking for $30 per phone and $40 per tablet for the round rectangle touchscreen patent be fair. Grow up! Apple is the embodiment of greed and does not play fair.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.