FRAND arbitration: The determination of fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory rates for SFPs by arbitral tribunals

    Research output: Working paperDiscussion paperOther research output

    Abstract

    At the core of most disputes concerning the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs) lies the inability of the SEP holder and the standard implementer to agree on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) license terms. As an alternative to court litigation, a growing number of academics, agency officials and private practitioners have advocated arbitration of SEP-related disputes, and there is anecdotal evidence that are increasingly relying on arbitration to settle such disputes. The purpose of this paper is to discuss based on the author’s personal experience how arbitral proceedings to set FRAND terms work in practice, as well as the various challenges faced by arbitrators, parties, and counsel involved in such proceedings.
    Original languageEnglish
    Number of pages16
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2016

    Publication series

    NameTILEC Discussion Paper
    Volume2016-028

    Fingerprint

    arbitration
    patent
    license
    evidence
    experience

    Keywords

    • standardization
    • patents
    • standard-essential patents
    • hold up
    • FRAND
    • arbitration

    Cite this

    @techreport{73f0283e38714c6589045cceae42cec9,
    title = "FRAND arbitration: The determination of fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory rates for SFPs by arbitral tribunals",
    abstract = "At the core of most disputes concerning the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs) lies the inability of the SEP holder and the standard implementer to agree on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) license terms. As an alternative to court litigation, a growing number of academics, agency officials and private practitioners have advocated arbitration of SEP-related disputes, and there is anecdotal evidence that are increasingly relying on arbitration to settle such disputes. The purpose of this paper is to discuss based on the author’s personal experience how arbitral proceedings to set FRAND terms work in practice, as well as the various challenges faced by arbitrators, parties, and counsel involved in such proceedings.",
    keywords = "standardization, patents, standard-essential patents, hold up, FRAND, arbitration",
    author = "Damien Geradin",
    year = "2016",
    month = "9",
    day = "1",
    language = "English",
    series = "TILEC Discussion Paper",
    type = "WorkingPaper",

    }

    FRAND arbitration : The determination of fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory rates for SFPs by arbitral tribunals. / Geradin, Damien.

    2016. (TILEC Discussion Paper; Vol. 2016-028).

    Research output: Working paperDiscussion paperOther research output

    TY - UNPB

    T1 - FRAND arbitration

    T2 - The determination of fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory rates for SFPs by arbitral tribunals

    AU - Geradin, Damien

    PY - 2016/9/1

    Y1 - 2016/9/1

    N2 - At the core of most disputes concerning the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs) lies the inability of the SEP holder and the standard implementer to agree on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) license terms. As an alternative to court litigation, a growing number of academics, agency officials and private practitioners have advocated arbitration of SEP-related disputes, and there is anecdotal evidence that are increasingly relying on arbitration to settle such disputes. The purpose of this paper is to discuss based on the author’s personal experience how arbitral proceedings to set FRAND terms work in practice, as well as the various challenges faced by arbitrators, parties, and counsel involved in such proceedings.

    AB - At the core of most disputes concerning the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs) lies the inability of the SEP holder and the standard implementer to agree on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) license terms. As an alternative to court litigation, a growing number of academics, agency officials and private practitioners have advocated arbitration of SEP-related disputes, and there is anecdotal evidence that are increasingly relying on arbitration to settle such disputes. The purpose of this paper is to discuss based on the author’s personal experience how arbitral proceedings to set FRAND terms work in practice, as well as the various challenges faced by arbitrators, parties, and counsel involved in such proceedings.

    KW - standardization

    KW - patents

    KW - standard-essential patents

    KW - hold up

    KW - FRAND

    KW - arbitration

    M3 - Discussion paper

    T3 - TILEC Discussion Paper

    BT - FRAND arbitration

    ER -