"it is neither fair nor non-discriminatory for the holder of the FRAND-encumbered patent to require licenses to non-FRAND-encumberd patents as a condition for licensing its patent"
I see the ambiguity in the expression "require licenses".
Commissioner Pinkert was pretty clear in his dissent's conclusion here:
<<Accordingly, I determine that an exclusion order and a corresponding cease-and-desist order should not issue as a result of Apple's infringement of the '348 patent. I emphasize, however, that I have not adopted a blanket rule to the effect that relief under Section 337 is precluded under the public interest provisions whenever a FRAND obligation has been undertaken with respect to the patent(s) in question. Rather, I have considered whether Samsung is making FRAND licensing terms available to Apple, and I have found the weight of the evidence to indicate that Samsung is not. I have also considered whether a Section 337 remedy given such circumstances would impose significant costs on the U.S. economy, harming consumers while undermining the standards setting process and thus public welfare and competitive conditions, and I have taken into account other factors pertaining to the public interest as well. My determination rests on the totality of this analysis. [END OF COMMISSIONER PINKERT'S DISSENTING VIEWS]>>
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
