Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Marvell COLORZ 800G Silicon Photonics Module and Orion DSP for Next-Gen Networks. Check this out
https://www.servethehome.com/marvell-colorz-800g-silicon-photonics-module-and-orion-dsp-for-next-gen-networks/
Marvell COLORZ 800G Silicon Photonics Module and Orion DSP for Next-Gen Networks
what do you make of this
What do you make of this
Marvell COLORZ 800G Silicon Photonics Module and Orion DSP for Next-Gen Networks. Check this out
https://www.servethehome.com/marvell-colorz-800g-silicon-photonics-module-and-orion-dsp-for-next-gen-networks/
Marvell COLORZ 800G Silicon Photonics Module and Orion DSP for Next-Gen Networks
Is Nokia still in business? I don't see any case with IDCC still open!
BoA continues its Buy rating, target 105
hard long road up, quick slide down
Effective July 31, 2023, Mr. Eric Cohen will no longer be serving as Chief Strategy & Growth Officer of InterDigital, Inc. (the “Company”). He will remain with the Company through September 15, 2023, as a strategic advisor to facilitate the transition of his responsibilities.
Trial in US delayed
ORDER, Defendants Motion To Sever and Motion To Stay InterDigital's Patent Infringement Claims (D.I. 300 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART, as follows: The Motion DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Lenovo's request to sever InterDigital's patent infringement claims. The Motion is GRANTED with respect to Lenovo's request to stay InterDigital's patent infringement claims. It is FURHTER ORDERED that all claims in this case are STAYED pending the appeal of the UK court decision. Signed by Judge Joshua D. Wolson on 7/18/2023. (mpb)
Document: 318
Item 8.01.
Other Events.
On July 11, 2023, InterDigital, Inc. (the “Company”) received a cash payment in the amount of $184.9 million related to its UK High Court case against Lenovo equal to the amount the court ordered Lenovo to pay for a license through 2023. At this time the Company expects to defer recognizing any additional catch-up revenue until the appeal process progresses.
New SA article
maybe that's the problem with quants
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4616275-interdigital-stock-risk-reward-balance-no-longer-makes-sense?mailingid=32041571&messageid=2800&serial=32041571.1525&utm_campaign=rta-stock-article&utm_medium=email&utm_source=seeking_alpha&utm_term=32041571.1525
Does a new trial start in Delaware today?
Per Bloomberg
target prices
Roth 114.00
Jeffereies 106.00
BoA/ML 105.00
Zachs 105.00
Sidoti 112.00
Still more upside to InterDigital, says Roth
The stock has been on an incredible run this year, but Roth Capital Partners analyst Scott W. Searle sees more upside to wireless patents company InterDigital (InterDigital Stock Quote, Charts, News, Analysts, Financials NASDAQ:IDCC). Searle delivered an update on Thursday, saying the company has a clear path to earnings growth over the next few years, with lots of potential in the video streaming sector.
Last week, Roth Capital hosted a call with Interdigital President and CEO Liren Chen to talk about progress in the business, where the company had a successful UK High Court outcome with Lenovo, while its Samsung arbitration continues in line with prior disclosed timelines and parameters and its CE video IP monetization continues to build momentum.
“With multiple technologies feeding this opportunity (largely video codecs/compression IP buffeted by WiFi and core cellular solutions), we expect CE momentum to continue into key segments such as TVs/monitors, laptops, etc., comprising over a 400 million annual unit opportunity,” Searle wrote.
On IDCC’s IP video, Searle called it a key enabler but one which has yet to be monetized in the currently $300-$400 billion market (and en route to $500 billion by 2026). Searle said the sector uses standards-based compression solutions that improve performance and reduce transmission and storage costs, effectively essential tech.
Searle said the opportunity is huge for InterDigital. Providing perspective, the analyst said that a $0.01 per month fee, for example, across the top ten global streaming platforms would translate to an annual $100 million+ or about $3.00 per share in earnings.
“While early, we believe this opportunity has been actively developing over a multi-year period and expect this model to emerge within the next couple of years (Note: this is not built into our current expectations),” he said.
IDCC shares are up about 90 per cent year-to-date, but Searle has maintained a “Buy” rating on the stock and $114 per share target, which at press time translated to a projected one-year return of 19.6 per cent.
Searle is forecasting InterDigital’s revenue going from $457.8 million in 2022 to $513.2 million in 2023 and to $434.2 million in 2024, while EPS is expected to go from $4.45 per share in 2022 to $8.08 in 2023 and to $5.65 in 2024.
“With additional upside of $2-3 EPS in the core wireless business (Samsung arbitration, OPPO & Vivo licenses), video CE opportunities ($1+ EPS) and emerging recurring video streaming monetization ($3+ EPS), we remain comfortable with a $7.00+ EPS target over the next two to three years,” Searle wrote.
https://www.cantechletter.com/2023/07/still-more-upside-to-interdigital-says-roth/#
older article
InterDigital is a double from here, Roth Capital says
Good news has been coming in from InterDigital Inc (InterDigital Inc Stock Quote, Charts, News, Analysts, Financials NASDAQ:IDCC), according to Roth Capital Partners analyst Scott W. Searle, who delivered an update to clients on the company on Tuesday. Searle maintained a “Buy” rating on the stock and $100.00 target price, which at the time of publication represented a projected one-year return of 102 per cent.
A leading designer, developer and licensor of advanced technologies for mobile devices and networks, InterDigital has a portfolio of over 19,000 patents, with an emphasis on communications and patents for 3G, 4G, Wifi and emerging 5G applications along with IoT, video and sensor solutions.
The company announced on Tuesday that its board has authorized an increase to its stock repurchase program by $333 million to a total of $400 million, with the company saying it will use its cash resources to facilitate the buybacks.
Also on Tuesday, InterDigital announced an agreement with Samsung to have a panel of arbitrators to “establish the royalties to be paid by Samsung,” with the outcome to be a global licensing agreement expected to be concluded within about 18 months.
“While we always prefer to conclude our license agreements through amicable good faith negotiation, independent binding arbitration provides an effective mechanism for resolving licensing disputes,” commented Liren Chen, CEO and President, InterDigital, in a press release. “I welcome Samsung’s willingness to enter into a new license with us and their commitment to work through the remaining issues in arbitration.”
Finally, on Tuesday InterDigital further announced a new video licensing agreement with LG and a renewal of one with Panasonic.
Searle called the Samsung arbitration news a mixed bag with more positive than negative, since Samsung is acknowledging that it uses IDCC patents and expects to be required to use their IP going forward and, further, Searle said arbitration will be less costly and more amicable route.
“Overall, we view the news as a net positive with Samsung’s arbitration acknowledging IDCC’s patent validity (and avoiding a license agreement lapse), just debating the actual annual value (Note: We highlight that Samsung pays ~60 per cent of the recent Apple renewal). While near-term revenue recognition questions exist, we believe the longer-term sales and EPS will be higher,” Searle wrote.
On the share buyback plan, Searle pointed out that the $400 million amounts to about 26 per cent of IDCC’s market cap at the start of the new year.
“While we believe this encompasses an element of stock support, given potential investor discomfort around the arbitration timeline and outcome, it also underscores the successful conclusion of the Apple renegotiation and partial resolution with Samsung (arbitration). Consequently, capital requirements for a protracted and expensive litigation have been mitigated, leaving the prior balance sheet with $863 million in cash (FCF positive operations) in an overcapitalized state. Overall, the buyback is healthy, accretive and provides support,” he said.
June 30, 2023
Via CM/ECF
The Honorable Joshua D. Wolson
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
3809 U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom 3-B
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Re: InterDigital Technology Corporation, et al. v. Lenovo Holding Co., Inc., et al.
C.A. No. 1:19-cv-01590-JDW
Dear Judge Wolson,
The parties provide the following update regarding the status of their UK proceedings:
On June 27, 2023, Mr. Justice Mellor, the trial court judge in the parties’ FRAND
proceedings before the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, issued his final Approved
Judgment and Order, both attached hereto. The Court's “Settled License” is appended to the
Judgment.
With respect to the mootness issue, InterDigital’s position, consistent with the position
articulated during the parties' March 22, 2023 status conference, is that all issues in the Delaware
case are—or will become—moot. InterDigital respectfully submits that any decisions on appeal
in the UK proceedings could have an impact on those issues, and therefore InterDigital believes it
would be premature to formally address mootness at this time. To avoid the unnecessary
expenditure of party and court resources, InterDigital proposes that this case be stayed in its
entirety.
Lenovo’s position is that InterDigital’s patent claims are now moot and should be
dismissed. Lenovo otherwise agrees that all other claims currently pending before this Court
should be stayed at this time.
As instructed in the Court’s March 23, 2023 order, Dkt. 313, the parties will notify the
Court when the UK proceedings have concluded and the final agreement between the parties has
been executed.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Neal C. Belgam
Neal C. Belgam (No. 2721)
Silver Bull Announces Filing of Request for Arbitration with International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
Silver Bull Resources, Inc.
Thu, June 29, 2023 at 4:30 PM EDT
In this article:
SVBL
0.00%
Watchlist
Watchlist
Silver Bull Resources, Inc.
Silver Bull Resources, Inc.
VANCOUVER, British Columbia, June 29, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Silver Bull Resources, Inc. (TSX: SVB, OTCQB: SVBL) (“Silver Bull” or the “Company”) announces that it has commenced international arbitration proceedings against the United Mexican States (“Mexico”) under the Agreement between the United States of America, Mexico, and Canada (the “USMCA”) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (the “NAFTA”). The Arbitration arises from Mexico’s unlawful expropriation and other unlawful treatment of Silver Bull and its investments resulting from the illegal blockade of Silver Bull’s Sierra Mojada project.
The arbitration has been initiated under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States process, which falls under the auspices of the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), to which Mexico is a signatory.
Silver Bull officially notified Mexico on March 2, 2023 of its intention to initiate an arbitration owing to Mexico’s breaches of NAFTA by unlawfully expropriating Silver Bull’s investments without compensation, failing to provide Silver Bull and its investments with fair and equitable treatment or full protection and security, and not upholding NAFTA’s national treatment standard. Silver Bull held a meeting with Mexican government officials in Mexico City on May 30, 2023, in an attempt to explore amicable settlement options and avoid arbitration. However, the 90-day period for amicable settlement under NAFTA expired on June 2, 2023, without a resolution.
Despite repeated demands and requests for action by the Company, Mexico’s governmental agencies have allowed the unlawful blockade to continue, thereby failing to protect Silver Bull’s investments. Consequently, Silver Bull will seek to recover an amount of approximately US$178 million in damages that it has suffered due to Mexico’s breach of its obligations under NAFTA, which includes sunk costs of approximately US$82.5 million, usually considered minimum damages in such cases.
The Company has engaged Boies Schiller Flexner (UK) LLP (“BSF”), an international law firm with extensive experience in international investment arbitration concerning mining and other natural resources, to act on its behalf. The BSF Team will be led by Timothy L. Foden, a noted practitioner in the mining arbitration space.
On behalf of the Board of Directors
“Tim Barry”
Tim Barry, CPAusIMM
Chief Executive Officer and Director
INVESTOR RELATIONS:
1 604 687 5800 info@silverbullresources.com
InterDigital to appeal UK FRAND decision while Lenovo battle continues in China and US
Adam Houldsworth
29 June 2023
Two landmark global FRAND rate decisions by the High Court of England and Wales have disappointed SEP owners in recent months (see here and here).
Now InterDigital has been given permission to appeal one of those judgments, teeing up the UK’s first Court of Appeal dispute on the substance of global FRAND rate methodologies and providing hope to rights holders that a more SEP-friendly approach may be adopted by the higher court.
Moreover, InterDigital’s global SEP licensing fight with Lenovo continues to be fought in China and the US, despite the implementer’s undertaking to accept the rate set by the High Court in London. So the dispute appears to be far from over.
All this was revealed in an extensive follow-on decision handed down by the High Court this week. Dealing with several issues left unresolved in the first ruling, this opinion contains some other notable positives for InterDigital, which has been awarded an additional $46.2 million as part of a global SEP licence that the court has ordered Lenovo to sign. This represents the interest that the Chinese implementer must pay on the $138.7 million royalty the court has decided should have been paid for a global 3G-5G patent licence for the years 2007-2023.
Lenovo had argued that it is not obliged to pay interest to compensate the patentee for delays in payment. This, it said, was because the ETSI policy does not require it, because the $138.7 million sum was calculated in a way that it already accounts for any potential interest, and because InterDigital was found to be an unwilling licensor. However, Mr Justice Mellor rejected these points, awarding the patentee 4% interest compounded quarterly. This takes the value of the global licence to $184.9 million – a substantial increase.
InterDigital, however, was less successful on the subject of litigation costs, which tend to be awarded to the winning party in UK disputes. A substantial sum of money was at stake over this question: InterDigital spent £17.25 million on the FRAND portion of the UK litigation, whereas Lenovo has paid £14.27 million.
Despite the global per unit rate set by the court ($0.175) being substantially closer to Lenovo’s favoured rate of $0.16 than InterDigital’s $0.498, the patentee argued that it was the overall winner because the implementer was the one being forced to ‘write the cheque’. InterDigital had also needed to take Lenovo to trial to obtain a global licence agreement, it added, and to force the implementer to accept the court’s ruling.
However, Mellor J stated that he was “in no doubt that Lenovo are the overall winner of this FRAND trial”. Agreeing with Mr Justice Birss in Unwired Planet, he held that FRAND rate disputes are tariff-setting exercises. It matters, therefore, that the court largely sided with Lenovo on the subject of top-down checks and comparables analysis, and that it granted an award much closer to the implementer’s suggested licensing fee.
But despite ordering InterDigital to pay most of Lenovo’s costs, Mellor J circumscribed some specific outgoings that must be paid by the implementer. Lenovo must pay InterDigital’s costs relating to the questions of foreign law that the Chinese company raised then abandoned during trial. It must also cover the patentee’s outgoings relating to the dispute over interest payments, Mellor J ruled. The breakdown of these sums will need to be subjected to detailed assessment if an agreement cannot be reached.
The follow-on decision also throws light on the nature of the parties’ broader global dispute. Though the UK court’s decision concerns a global licence rate and Lenovo has undertaken to accept the ruling, the companies continue to fight it out in China and the US.
A trial at the US District Court for the District of Delaware is scheduled for 4th December this year. This will consider InterDigital’s claim that Lenovo is infringing seven of its 3GPP SEPs as well as Lenovo’s antitrust counterclaim which, among other things, seeks “a refund for any overpayment for a licence to US Patents based on InterDigital’s UK action”.
Lenovo is also challenging the outcome of the UK court’s global FRAND decision in Chinese proceedings before the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, which it is asking to set a FRAND rate for the Chinese portion of InterDigital’s portfolio.
In fact, Lenovo has told the Beijing court that its decision may have an impact on the rate set by the UK courts. This despite the fact Lenovo abandoned its argument that the UK-set licence should contain an adjustment clause (to factor in subsequent US and Chinese decisions) during the High Court trial.
It also transpires that Lenovo had once again reversed its position on this matter in UK proceedings, asking Mellor J to include an adjustment clause in the global licence, allowing royalties to be changed in accordance with future decisions elsewhere.
It is clear, Mellor J stated, “that Lenovo does intend to maintain their attacks on the Judgment, the Licence and to undermine its Undertaking to this Court”. He refused to include an adjustment clause in the licence that Lenovo must now sign. However, Mellor J continued, “it is for the US and Chinese Judges to regulate the proceedings which are before them, not me”. So the global licence set in London may not ultimately be the final word on the parties’ agreement, if either party can persuade other courts to intervene.
Even more interesting is that Mellor J has granted InterDigital permission to appeal – and Lenovo to counter-appeal – his FRAND decision.
InterDigital had expressed its intention to challenge the ruling on several grounds. These include that the rate Mellor J derived from the LG 2017 licence ought to have factored in the sub-FRAND rates paid on past sales in that agreement, and that the finding of unwillingness against it failed to consider its offer of third-party arbitration.
These arguments were dismissed as unlikely to succeed, but Mellor J permitted an appeal to seek guidance on several points of principle relating to his ruling. These include whether national limitation periods have a role to play in rate-setting; whether volume discounts are justified; whether it is appropriate for the court to seek to discourage hold-out; and whether it would be discriminatory against Lenovo to apply the kinds of discounts hitherto applied by InterDigital.
Lenovo, for its part, has been allowed to appeal the award of royalties from before the six-year limitation period.
This is good news for the patent community, especially SEP owners, because it promises further guidance on the principles according to which global FRAND rate decisions will be made in the UK.
Such guidance is much needed because of the dearth of existing case law: only three such decisions have yet been made by the English High Court and the Court of Appeal has not made a detailed judgment on methodological rate-setting questions.
https://www.iam-media.com/article/interdigital-appeal-uk-frand-decision-while-lenovo-battle-continues-in-china-and-us?utm_source=InterDigital%2Bto%2Bchallenge%2BUK%2BLenovo%2BFRAND%2Bdecision&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=IAM%2BDaily
Lenovo Declared “Overall Winner” in InterDigital FRAND case
27 June 2023
Lenovo today announced that the UK High Court has declared Lenovo undoubtedly the overall winner in ongoing litigation with InterDigital regarding license rates for 3G, 4G, and 5G patents. The Court is requiring InterDigital to pay the bulk of Lenovo’s legal costs for the FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and Non-discriminatory) case.
Today’s judgment further reinforces Lenovo’s continued commitment as a willing licensee and validates the license rate Lenovo advocated for in litigation.
Lenovo’s John Mulgrew, Vice President, Deputy General Counsel & Chief Intellectual Property Officer, welcomes the decision as follows:
“Lenovo’s clear win in this FRAND rate-setting case is a broader, landmark victory for the technology industry and the customers we serve. The Court’s determination that InterDigital’s global cellular royalty rate should be US$0.175 per unit provides full transparency in the face of InterDigital’s supra-FRAND offers and behavior as an unwilling licensor. We are pleased that the UK Court’s judgment facilitates the proliferation of affordable innovation to customers around the world.”
Lenovo’s earlier comments on the FRAND case can be found in this statement.
https://news.lenovo.com/pressroom/press-releases/lenovo-declared-overall-winner-in-interdigital-frand-case/
The full judgment is available here on the National Archive website under case number HP-2019-000032.
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
Stifel moves target to 38 from 32
what was disappointing ?
Neither Optis nor InterDigital should regret their London FRAND trials
https://www.iam-media.com/article/jw-column-22nd-june-2023-interdigital-optis-london-frand-trial?utm_source=BREAKING%253A%2BUS%2BSenators%2BTillis%2Band%2BCoons%2Bre-file%2Bpatent%2Beligibility%2Bbill&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=IAM%2BDaily
Loop, you have been here 38 years ?
You’ve got mail
never rec'd it
jealmc79 I would like to discuss this with you offline, can you email me at vigaits@aol.com
Lewrock, if you were getting 400+ a day last October I can imagine how many shares you owned. Hope you did take some profits on the roller coaster ride
TD tells you daily what they are charging and what you recieve. I can't believe there is a big difference in rates between all the greedy houses
X not sure where u r getting your borrow rate, but TD is only charging 4 1/2 %
Another company going after naked shorting
https://cases.stretto.com/public/x228/12086/PLEADINGS/1208606122380000000116.pdf
A toast to Mickey !
surely you jest. When was the last time you knew an employer who determined your raise because you have to pay tax on it. These dolts are overpaid for the underperformance that they watch over. This stock is lower now than it was in 2016, and that's not even counting inflation. How much have then been paid over those 8 years, not counting their taxes.
Took the words right out of my mouth. Then they won't even answers questions at an annual meeting. They limit you to two, and won't allow any follow-ups to the piss poor answers that they give. it should be a private company
guess everyone is disappointed there was no news release this am !!! Ha!
The annual meeting is now up.
where is that info coming from. I see no news about ER tomorrow
word is a replay of the annual meeting should be hosted here with 24 hrs
www.virtualshareholdermeeting.com/IDCC2023
and they limit you to only 2 questions
I would like someone to ask when are they going to raise the dividend?
Anyone have a question they would like asked, as the meeting is going on now
The rollout is now official
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/22nd-century-group-xxii-launching-130000944.html
-LUMRYZ is the first and only once-at-bedtime oxybate for people living with narcolepsy
-Once-nightly dosing regimen of LUMRYZ has been found by FDA to provide a major contribution to patient care over all twice-nightly oxybates
DUBLIN, Ireland, June 05, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Avadel Pharmaceuticals plc (Nasdaq: AVDL), a biopharmaceutical company focused on transforming medicines to transform lives, announced today that LUMRYZ is now commercially available. LUMRYZ is an extended-release formulation of sodium oxybate indicated to be taken once at bedtime for the treatment of cataplexy or excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) in adults with narcolepsy.
“We are proud to announce that LUMRYZ is commercially available through both our RYZUP™ patient support program and our specialty pharmacy network for patients living with narcolepsy who have been waiting for over two decades for a single dose treatment option that provides the opportunity for an uninterrupted night sleep,” said Greg Divis, Chief Executive Officer of Avadel. “LUMRYZ represents a new generation of oxybate treatment the FDA deemed clinically superior to all twice nightly oxybate treatments. The Avadel team is fully prepared to execute our commercial strategy and deliver LUMRYZ to the $3 billion plus once-at-bedtime oxybate market.”
Questions Abound On EU Plan For New Essential Patent Rules
By Ryan Davis ·Law360 (May 1, 2023, 10:35 PM EDT) --
The European Union's call to create a new body to set royalty rates for standard-essential patents before lawsuits could be filed has drawn a skeptical response, with experts questioning how the plan would work and whether it would achieve its goal of streamlining disputes.
The European Commission released its proposal on Thursday, saying the move is aimed at bringing more transparency and predictability to a complex area of the law that has led to heated disputes and litigation.
When patents must be used in a product in order for it to operate on industry standards like Wi-Fi and 5G, the patent owner pledges to license them on terms that are fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory, or FRAND. However, what constitutes such a rate often spurs legal clashes, and the EU proposal could reshape them in unpredictable ways.
Tom Cotter, a professor at University of Minnesota Law School, said that since rates are now set through litigation in courts around the world, which can lead to inconsistent results and forum shopping, "there is certainly is a lot of discussion around the world about the need to come up with a better, more efficient system for determining FRAND royalties."
"There's a lot to be applauded in trying to do that," he said. "But I'm not sure that this particular proposal is going to go forward as is because of the many objections that people have raised to it."
The European Commission called for a new "competence center" to be established within the European Union Intellectual Property Office, or EUIPO, which would create a central registry of standard-essential patents in force in the EU and conduct checks of whether the patents are in fact essential.
The proposal also calls for the center to operate a system to set a global FRAND rate for the patents when the parties cannot agree, with such a determination becoming a requirement before litigation could be filed in the EU. The commission said the nonbinding rate would be set within nine months, and would "limit the duration of otherwise protracted licensing negotiations."
The many questions spurred by the idea of creating an entirely new framework for standard-essential patents disputes have focused on the role of the EUIPO, whether the new body could meet the task being set out for it, and what would happen once a rate was set.
The EUIPO currently only registers trademarks and designs and has no involvement in patents, so its central position in the process is puzzling to many observers.
Marianne Schaffner of Reed Smith LLP's Paris office said that she found the proposal "quite concerning" since the key role is given to "an office which has no competence in patent law."
Moreover, she said that requiring patent owners to register their patents with the new body, and get determinations on whether they are essential and what a FRAND rate would be before litigation could begin, "adds so much complexity, and it slows down so much the possibility of having a decision from a court, that it's not business-minded to me."
While the proposal envisions the new body coming up with a FRAND determination within nine months, "I think that's very ambitious," said Andrew Sharples of the law firm EIP's London office. "To do a meaningful analysis in that time is going to be difficult, I think."
When the new body does set a FRAND rate, the fact that it would not be binding raises questions about what the parties are supposed to do with that information, attorneys said.
The commission "appears to have realized that the nonbinding nature just facilitates more delay," Sharples said. As a result, he noted that the proposal includes language stating that if one party commits to abide by the determination, it can terminate the process and file suit, putting pressure on the other side.
"They're trying to put in place incentives for parties to actually abide by their ruling, but query whether people will," he said, especially since there's no way of knowing at this stage what kind of rates the new body will set.
The EU aim for the proposal appears to be to "reduce litigation by giving the parties some idea of what a FRAND rate would be," said Amol Parikh of McDermott Will & Emery LLP. "But it's a nonbinding rate, so I'm curious to see if the courts will go through a similar analysis and come up with a similar rate."
In addition, Parikh noted that much about the proposed new process remains unclear, including who would be hired by the EUIPO to make the determinations, what experience they will have and what types of decisions they might make.
"Those are the types of questions that stakeholders are going to have to determine whether the regulations are workable in practice," he said.
Brian Pomper, executive director of the Innovation Alliance, whose members include owners of standard-essential patents like Qualcomm and InterDigital, said that a new body to determine licensing rates is "really going to hurt the technology developers."
When companies create inventions that are essential to industry standards, then are told, "'you're not going to be able to license this on the open market, you are going to have to take the price that we are going to be willing to allow you to charge,' that's a not a recipe for technological success," said Pomper, a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.
He said the proposal appears driven by the concerns of companies like automakers that implement standards in their products and want to pay lower prices to license patents. "I can tell you ... it's not the patent creators and innovator companies that are going to the EU and saying, 'You need to set up a system to set prices in our marketplace,'" Pomper said.
In contrast, the proposal was welcomed by Alex Moss, executive director of the Public Interest Patent Law Institute, a group that says it's dedicated to ensuring that the patent system promotes access to technology for the public's benefit.
The proposed new system would provide more transparency about standard-essential licensing information, which is now largely confidential and can't be accessed by anyone other than patent owners except through litigation, she said.
"So right now, they have an enormous information advantage and that's really how this changes the game," Moss said. "The value of your patent shouldn't reflect an information asymmetry."
In addition, she noted that standard-essential patent litigation is extremely expensive, so the possibility that the new body could reduce disputes would free up money to use for salaries or research and development, to the benefit of both sides.
Others said if the system were to be adopted, it's not clear how it could impact the behavior of patent owners and potential licensees who implement standards in their products.
"It might not have the desired effect. It might simply result in either implementers or owners going to other countries to try to get determinations," rather than dealing with the framework in the EU, said Cotter of the University of Minnesota Law School.
Likewise, Reed Smith's Schaffner described the proposal as "a gift that the EU commission is making to the U.K." Since the courts in that country have said they can make FRAND determinations without all the steps being contemplated in Europe, the U.K. would likely become a more appealing litigation venue if the policy took effect, she said.
For now, it's far from certain that the European Commission's proposal will become a reality. It must be approved by the EU countries and the European Parliament to take effect and will likely face fierce lobbying. "If this is ever implemented, I imagine it's going to look much different than the proposal," said Parikh of McDermott.
"There's a lot of uncertainty and at least from many quarters, I think, some degree of unhappiness with the current proposals," Cotter said. "So that makes me at least somewhat skeptical that it is going to be adopted in its present format."
--Editing by Emily Kokoll and Jill Coffey.