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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleProfessional

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 pages15
JournalCompetition Policy International - Antitrust Chronicle
Volume1
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 15 Sep 2016

Fingerprint

arbitration
patent
license
evidence
experience

Keywords

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

Cite this

@article{7a352288306e41a8908a92eaf2d1dd30,
title = "FRAND arbitration: The determination of fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory rates for SEPs 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 = "15",
language = "English",
volume = "1",
journal = "Competition Policy International - Antitrust Chronicle",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - FRAND arbitration

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

AU - Geradin, Damien

PY - 2016/9/15

Y1 - 2016/9/15

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 - Article

VL - 1

JO - Competition Policy International - Antitrust Chronicle

JF - Competition Policy International - Antitrust Chronicle

IS - 1

ER -