There is a Federal Circuit decision today, Sionyx LLC v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K., that addresses some topics on damages and injunctions. Factually, it's a bit complex, so I will address it in a post later this week. Meanwhile, here are some more recent posts and articles on FRAND:
1. On IP Watchdog, Curtis Dodd and
Chris Dubuc published their fourth post in a series, titled SEP Owner Obligations: Analyzing FRAND Statements for Cellular Wireless SEPS (Part IV). The article discusses, among other matters, various positions and decisions throughout the world regarding which party (SEP owner or implementer) bears the burden of proof on issues such as essentiality and invalidity. A fifth post in the series is promised.
2.EPLaw posted a short article about a webinar it hosted titled Resolving Global FRAND/SEP Disputes Before National Courts. Speakers included Judges Christopher Floyd, Peter Meier-Beck, and Rian Kalden, along with Cordula Schumacher and moderator Myles Jelf. The article mentions the topics discussed, which included antisuit injunctions and several other issues, but as far as I can tell the video itself is not publicly available (at least not yet).
3. The Kluwer Patent Blog recently published an interview with Peter Chrocziel titled 'Courts cannot shy away from tackling FRAND issues." Dr. Chrocziel is supportive of the decision of the U.K. courts in Unwired Planet, less so of what he perceives as the German courts' avoidance of providing clear guidance on the meaning of FRAND.
4. On JUVE Patent, Mathieu Klos published a post titled A New FRAND Dance Is in Sight, which discusses the pending reference to the CJEU in Nokia v. Daimler and potential future competition between the U.K. and continental European courts for FRAND cases.
5. On Law360, Theodore Stevenson, Nicholas Mathews, and Patrick Pijls published an essay titled US Courts Should Adjudicate FRAND Rates on a Global Basis. The authors argue that, while the Federal Circuit's 2007 opinion in Voda v. Cordis constrains the jurisdiction of U.S. courts to adjudicate disputes over the infringement of foreign patent rights, U.S. courts can and should be open to adjudicating breach-of-contact claims that would result in the adjudication of whether a global license offer is FRAND.
6. Also on Law360, and taking a rather different view than that expressed in the preceding essay, Mauricio Uribe published When It Comes to SEPs, Act Locally But Enforce Globally. Mr. Uribe poses the question whether convenience is becoming "the new licensing consideration," and notes what he perceives as the diminished concern about holdup among courts and policymakers (e.g., the USDOJ/USPTO December 2019 joint statement). Interesting perspective, in response to the U.K. courts' concern over what they see as the "sheer madness" of setting rates on a country-by-country basis: "Given the long-standing tradition of multijurisdictional licensing
programs and the sophistication of the entities participating in SEP
standards organizations, it would seem to be sheer madness to believe
that convenience would be the actual driving factor in requiring a
single, global royalty rate determined by a single jurisdiction."