Stokd $NLST RAND "2. Samsung argues that it has adequately alleged exclusionary conduct by claiming Netlist “falsely represented...that it would license any essential patents on RAND [reasonable and nondiscriminatory] terms,” and that the standards-development organization “relied on these RAND-licensing assurances as it produced industry-wide standards.” These allegations, Samsung contends, suffice to state exclusionary conduct under Broadcom v Qualcom. The United States notes that, under a Broadcom theory of liability, “it is the distortion of the competitive process, not the level of the royalty rate later demanded by the patent owner, that implicates the antitrust laws. By contrast, “charging high prices does not by itself constitute exclusionary conduct.”. A violation of contractual obligations, including contractual requirements that a patentee negotiates for RAND terms, would not “in and of itself, constitute exclusionary or anticompetitive conduct cognizable under the antitrust laws.” https://media.stocktwits-cdn.com/api/3/media/11534470/default.webp
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
