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 -