FRAND Holdup and Its Solution (*)
Invited Researcher: LI, Yang (**)
Although many approaches have been raised to determine and calculate the royalty of SEP with FRAND commitment,
because of grossly exaggeration of the risks of patent holdup and overemphasizing limiting or eliminating the availability of
injunction, in the absence of scientific and uniform standard of determining FRAND royalty, not only FRAND royalty of
substantive justice is still far away, but also FRAND holdup has become a serious issue perplexing SEP holder. In order tomitigate, prevent and even eliminate FRAND holdup and to determine FRAND royalty at the meantime, FRAND-oriented
towards procedural justice is perhaps a good choice. The core of FRAND-oriented towards procedural justice is to design a
set of rule of Notice and Counter-Notice to stimulate SEP holder and SEP implementer to negotiate royalty in good faithand settle FRAND royalty through negotiation. In case of negotiation failure, the third independent party (court, arbitration
organization) can also depend on rule of Notice and Counter-Notice to determine whether injunction is necessary anddecide what’s FRAND royalty.

I

Introduction

been broken by FRAND holdup. A new balancemechanism must be found.

Patent holdup means a SEP holder unreasonably
exercises its SEP rights with FRAND commitments toobtain excessively high royalties. It refers to “the abilityof a holder of an SEP to demand more than the value of
its patented technology and to attempt to capture thevalue of the standard itself.”1, 2 Patent holdup hampers
utilization of patented technology and harms consumer’sinterests.3
Different from patent holdup, FRAND holdup
means a SEP implementer strategically and unreasonably
makes full use of the uncertainty and ambiguity of
FRAND to pay excessively low royalties or even not to
pay any royalties to a SEP holder.4 FRAND holdup isalso called as reverse holdup. Because the uncertainty andambiguity of FRAND are one of the most importantreasons why reverse holdup occurs, this paper calls
reverse holdup as “FRAND holdup”. FRAND holdup
hampers innovation of technology and harms consumer’sinterests as well.5
Standardization of patent may lead to patent holdup
and royalty stacking. However, uncertainty andambiguity of FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and
Non-Discriminatory) provided by SSOs6 to be used for
mitigating, preventing and eliminating patent holdup androyalty stacking, one-sided denial of injunction against
standard essential patent (SEP) implementer and otherreasons have resulted in FRAND holdup, the interest
balance between SEP holder and SEP implementer has

II Why FRAND holdup occurs
1

Grossly Exaggeration of Risks of Patent
HoldupAlthough a lot of literature have alleged a lot of risks
caused by patent holdup,7these literatures possess “noempirical evidence that any industry standard has beensignificantly harmed by ‘holdup’.”8 The patent holdup istheoretically possible but rarely occurs in practice. 9
Patent holdup is unlikely when SEP implementer believes
in any time that the licensing royalty offered by SEP
holder is against FRAND and exercises the right tochallenge the offered licensing terms. Even if patent
holdup could arise, there is no reason to assume the SEP
holder will use injunction as a tool to hold up infringer.10,
11
There is no reason to assert that the royalties negotiatedunder the threat of injunction will be beyond FRAND
royalties.12
Besides, there is also not empirical data to back theidea that patent holdup has harmed the setting andimplementation of standards.13, 14
Grossly exaggeration of risks of patent holdup has led
to all kinds of proposals explicitly or implicitly designed toprevent and eliminate patent holdup, for example,
collective negotiation of royalties, depriving the ability of
SEP holder to seek injunctive relief and to reinterpret
FRAND as a tool to limit the ability of SEP holder to(*) This is a summary of the report published under the 2014FY Industrial Property Research Promotion Project (2014FY-2016FY) Entrusted
by the Japan Patent Office.
(**) Professor of Law, Shenzhen University Law School, at our institute over a period of approximately 2.5 months from July 13, 2015
through September 30, 2015, as an Invited Researcher for the Fiscal Year 2015.
Present Affiliation and Post: Professor of Law, Sun Yat-Sen University School of Law● 1 ●IIP Bulletin 2016 Vol.25

monetize innovation,15 have been or being made full use
of tactically by SEP implementer to force SEP holder toexcessively reduce royalties, in another word, reversely
hold up SEP holder.16
2

Uncertainty and Ambiguity of FRAND
Up to now, no sophisticated and universal
conclusions about what’s FRAND licensing royalty havealready been reached theoretically or practically all over
the world.17While the court became the final determinerof FRAND royalty in practice, it hasn’t contributed any
convincing answer in the past SEP dispute cases.
Both the judgement of case Microsoft v. Motorolaand Apple v. Sumsung focused on the contribution of
SEP to calculate FRAND licensing royalty. In thejudgement of Microsoft v. Motorola, the contribution isdefined to the contribution of the patent to the technicalcapabilities of the standard and the contribution of those
relevant technological capabilities to the implementer’s
products using the standard.18 In the judgement of Applev. Sumsung, the contribution is limited to the contributionof the specific component complying with standard in
implementer’s terminal product to the sale of
implementer’s terminal product and the rate of SEP
contribution in the contribution of the specific component
complying with standard in implementer’s terminal
product to the sale of implementer’s terminal product.19
Although determining FRAND royalty through thetechnical contribution may comply with “theproportionality principle”,20 Unfortunately it is very hardand even unlikely to quantify the technical contribution ofpatent to a standard and the implementer’s terminal
products or the sale of implementer’s terminal product.
Even if it’s possible to precisely quantify the technicalcontribution of patent to a standard and to an
implementer’s terminal products or the sale of
implementer’s terminal product, such method still
disregards the SEP holder’s investment cost, expected
profits, R&D risk, litigation cost and risk of whether the
relevant patents could be incorporated within certain
standards by SSOs while calculating the royalty, theroyalty by estimation is likely in conflict with the
FRAND principle.
In the case Huawei v. IDC, Shenzhen Intermediate
People’s Court and Guangdong High People’s Court
adopted comparison approach to determine FRAND
licensing royalty. The two courts all emphasized that,
although a SEP holder has different licensing royalty
models, under roughly the same transaction terms, thelicensor(SEP holder) should grant all licensees license to
implement SEPs on roughly the same licensing royalty,
otherwise the SEPs licensing royalty is against FRAND.
In this case, Huawei and Apple were under roughly thesame transaction terms, the royalty that IDC tried to seek
from Huawei was not roughly the same as the royalty it

had sought from Apple and thus against FRAND. 21
Determining FRAND royalty by comparing the royalties
that the licensor granted different licensees is perhaps best
approach to decide non-discriminatory licensing royalty.
However, in this case, the comparable royalty covered
SEPs and NON-SEPS in the global market, Huawei only
requested for license of IDC’s Chinese SEPs within
China. Considering the fact, a possibility is that the
royalty decided by Chinese courts (0.019%) exceeded
greatly the FRAND royalty that Huawei should have paid
to IDC and thus thoroughly violated FRAND principle.
Depending on the uncertainty and ambiguity of
FRAND, SEP implementer is able to shift the risk
involved in patent negotiation to the patent holder. Thereis no risk to the exploiter of the technology in not taking alicense before they exhaust their litigation options if the
only risk to them for violating the agreement is to pay a
FRNAD based royalty or fee. This puts the risk of loss
entirely on the side of the patent holder.”22
3

The Denial of Injunction Relief
Seen from all over the world, although there existed
vehement debates about whether SEP holder with
FRAND commitments has right to seek injunction relief
or not, the dominant opinion is to say No, the rationales
include the theory of waiver of right,23 the theory of noharm,24 the theory of misuse of right,25the theory of
implied licensing,26 The doctrine of anticompetition,27
and so on.
Although a categorical ban on injunction for SEPs
may avoid the theoretical risk of patent holdup, if there isno threat of injunction, ” an implementer’s best strategy
would be to infringe the SEPs and litigate FRAND terms,
delaying the execution of a licensing agreement andburdening the courts and diminishing the incentives for
an SEP holder to contribute future technologies to thestandard in the meantime.”28
4

Asymmetry of Information
In the process of negotiation about SEP with
FRAND licensing royalty, SEP holder usually refuses todisclose licensing agreements already concluded withother competitors to the SEP implementer in the name oftrade secrets protection. In the lack of the comparable
licensing royalties, it’s very difficult for SEP implementerto judge whether the royalty offered by SEP holder is
non-discriminatory or not. In practice, the SEP
implementer is always inclined to hold that the SEP
holder definitely violates the FRAND principle no matter
how much it quotes, and thus negotiates with SEP holder
in bad faith to delay or prolong negotiation on purpose or
directly files a lawsuit against the SEP holder with a viewto relying upon the court ruling to pay the SEP holder as● 2 ●IIP Bulletin 2016 Vol.25

low licensing royalty as possible. The information
asymmetry has become a very important reason causing
FRAND holdup.
All in all, overemphasizing the risks of patent
holdup, the uncertainty and ambiguity of FRAND royalty,
limiting or eliminating the availability of injunction andinformation asymmetry have resulted in SEP
implementer’s opportunistic behavior, FRAND holdup
has become a serious issue perplexing SEP holder.

III Rule of Notice and Counter-Notice
Oriented Towards Procedural Justice:
Possible Solutions to FRAND Holdup
1

Unavoidableness of Patent Holdup and
FRAND Holdup
In order to mitigate, prevent and even eliminate
FRAND holdup and patent holdup and to determine
FRAND royalty at the same time, to require all standard
participants unilaterally to disclose an ex ante licensing
royalty to all would-be SEP implementers at the time
when their patents are incorporated into relevant standard
by SSOs is perhaps a choice. For the NPEs
(Non-Practicing Entities), an ex ante unilateral disclosureof a fixed licensing royalty may be practicable. However,it’s likely to violate market discipline(the price fluctuateswith market) to require all SEP holders engaging in
product manufacturing to unilaterally disclose an ex ante
fixed licensing royalty to all potential licensee, it’s hardly
to get patent holder’s support.
Ex ante multilateral licensing negotiations between
IP holders and the group of SSO members is often
recommended to mitigate patent holdup as well. However,multilateral licensing negotiations are strictly prohibitedby many SSOs because it could potentially bring about
antitrust liability, increase the costs of participation andhinder the standard-setting process.29
The above situation shows that in mostcircumstances the determination of FRAND SEP
licensing royalty has to depend on bilateral bargaining
between SEP holder and SEP implementer after patent isincorporated into relevant standard. As long as bilateralnegotiation is indispensable for determining FRAND
licensing royalty, patent holdup and FRAND holdup will
unavoidably occur.
2

Four Tasks Which Any Possible Solution
Should Undertake
Facing with FRAND holdup and patent holdup, any
possible solution should strike a balance between SEP
holder’s interest and SEP implementer’s interest so as topromote the protection and the utilization of inventions,to encourage inventions, and thereby to contribute to thedevelopment of industry.30 In order for realization of theaim, any possible solution should undertake the following
four tasks which substantive FRAND is incompetent to.
First, to stimulate SEP holder and SEP implementerto successfully negotiate royalty in good faith underinformation asymmetry.
Second, to ensure SEP holder’s right to seek
injunction in some circumstances.
Third, to realize disclosure of the comparable
royalties.
Fourth, in case of negotiation failure between SEP
holder and SEP implementer, the court can also dependon procedural rule to determine whether injunction isnecessary for preventing FRAND holdup and further
decide what’s FRAND royalty.
A mechanism that can accomplish the four tasks at
the same time is perhaps a set of ex ante rule oriented
towards procedural justice which this paper calls as“Notice and Counter-Notice”.
3

Procedural Justice
In A Theory of Justice (Rawls 1971), John Rawls
developed his idea of procedural
justice encompassing three different forms:(1)perfectprocedural justice;(2)imperfect procedural justice; and(3)pure procedural justice.31
Pure procedural justice includes no independent
criterion for the right result. Instead, it requires “a correct
or fair procedure such that the outcome is likewise correct
or fair, whatever it is, provided that the procedure has
been properly followed.” 32 Consistency, neutrality,
participation, transparency and openness have been
proposed to judge whether a procedure is fair.33, 34, 35, 36
Research has showed that procedural justice directly
and positively influences disputants’ evaluation on
resolution. 37 What’s more important, research ofprocedural justice has showed that people were more
likely to accept negative outcomes from legal institutions
without losing loyalty to, or respect for those institutions
if they believed that the decisions that were being madewere procedurally fair.38
4Light and Shadow of CJEU’s Newest
Judgement
On July 16, 2015, CJEU made a landmark
judgement on Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. ZTE● 3 ●IIP Bulletin 2016 Vol.25

Corp., and ZTE Deutschland GmbH.39The judgementattempts to solve the issue whether a SEP holder with
FRAND commitment seeking a prohibitory injunction
against a SEP implementer abuses its dominant position,and strives to strike a balance between maintaining freecompetition and protecting proprietor’s intellectual
property rights.
Although CJEU’s judgement provides guideline for
judging SEP implementer’s good faith/bad faith andmakes it clear that under what circumstances can the SEP
holder seek injunction against SEP implementer, it does
not clear such issues as whether the SEP holder should
disclose the comparable royalties to the SEP implementer,
whether the SEP holder should specify the SEPs that SEP
implementer is using and why they are SEPs, SEP
implementer still can’t reasonably judge whether it isdiscriminated by SEP holder.
Besides, the judgement requires SEP implementer toprovide a bank guarantee and even to place the amounts
necessary on deposit before FRAND royalty has not been
determined by the third independent party, this is hardly
to be supported by SEP implementer and thus
impracticable.40
5Rule of Notice and Counter-Notice Oriented
Towards Procedural Justice
While CJEU’s judgement has shadow, it still casts
much light on how to devise rule of Notice andCounter-Notice oriented towards procedural justice.
Based on CJEU’s judgement, this paper tries to devise thefollowing rule of Notice and Counter-Notice oriented
towards procedural justice.
(1) The SEP Holder’s Notice
Before exercising SEP rights (include seeking
injunction relief and requesting for royalty), a SEP holder
should send a notice to a SEP implementer. An effective
notice should include the following contents:(i) a physical or electronic signature of the SEP holder.
(ii) the SEPs claimed to have been infringed and why
these patents are SEPs.
(iii) the specific way in which the SEPs have been
infringed.
(iv) the amount of royalty, in particular, the way in which
the royalty is to be calculated and the comparable
licensing royalty. Correspondingly, declaration torequest a SEP implementer to keep the comparable
licensing royalty secret.
(v) information reasonably sufficient to permit the SEP
implementer to contact it, such as an address,
telephone number, and, if available, an electronic
mail address at which the SEP holder may becontacted.
(vi) a statement that the SEP holder has a good faithbelief that use of the SEP in the manner complainedof is not authorized by the SEP holder, its agent, or
the law.
(vii) a statement that, where no agreement is reached on
the details of the FRAND terms following thecounter-notice by SEP implementer, the parties may,by common agreement, request that the amount of
the royalty be determined by an independent third
party, by decision without delay.
(viii) a statement that the information in the notification isaccurate, and under penalty of perjury.
(2) The Implementer’s Counter-Notice
After receiving SEP holder’s notice, as CJEU’sjudgement holds, SEP implementer should diligently
respond to the notice, in accordance with recognizedcommercial practices in the field and in goodfaith. 41 Corresponding to SEP holder’s notice, SEP
implementer’s effective counter-notice should include thefollowing contents:(i)a physical or electronic signature of the SEP
implementer.
(ii) the SEPs claimed by SEP holder are not SEPs andthe reasons.
(iii) a statement not to infringe SEP holder’s SEP and thereasons.
(iv) specifying the reasons why SEP implementer rejects
the amount of royalty offered by SEP holder and theway in which the royalty is to be calculated, inparticular, the comparable licensing royalty.
Correspondingly, declaration to keep comparable
licensing royalty secret.
(v) the amount of royalty that SEP implementer thinks
FRAND and the way in which the royalty is to be
calculated.
(vi) if the SEP implementer is using SEP before alicensing agreement has been concluded, the numberof the SEPs being used, the products using SEPs andtheir number, the area using SEPs and the sales
number of the product using SEPs.
(vii) a statement that it will pay FRAND royalty to SEP
holder in accordance with recognized commercial
practices in the field and in good faith, in particular,
without no delaying tactics.
(viii) a statement that, where no agreement is reached on
the details of the FRAND terms following the notice
by SEP holder, the parties may, by common
agreement, request that the amount of the royalty be
determined by an independent third party, bydecision without delay.
(ix) information reasonably sufficient to permit the SEP
holder to contact it, such as an address, telephone● 4 ●IIP Bulletin 2016 Vol.25

number, and, if available, an electronic mail address
at which the SEP implementer may be contacted.
(x) a statement that the information in the notification isaccurate, and under penalty of perjury.
(3) Consequences Against Rule of the Notice
and Counter-Notice
For the SEP holder, failing to send an effective
Notice to the SEP implementer shows that it is unwillingand in bad faith to negotiate FRAND royalty with SEP
implementer and is trying to do patent holdup, the SEP
implementer has the right to refuse the royalty offered byit and to require directly the independent third party (court
or arbitration organization) to determine a FRAND
royalty in favor of it, the royalty should be regarded as
FRAND.
For the SEP implementer, failing to send an
effective Counter-Notice to the SEP holder shows that it
is unwilling and in bad faith to negotiate FRAND royalty
and is trying to do FRAND holdup, the SEP holder has
the right to file a suit for seeking injunction against SEP
implementer and meanwhile to require directly the
independent third party (court or arbitration organization)
to determine a FRAND royalty in favor of it, the royalty
should also be regarded as FRAND.

IV Conclusions
Based on all the foregoing analysis, the following
conclusions may be drawn:
1. To absolutely negate injunction will lead to FRAND
holdup and is adverse to balancing the interests between
SEP holder and SEP implementer.
2. Disclosure of SEP holder’s comparable royalties to
SEP implementer is necessary for determining what’s
Non-discriminatory royalty and avoiding FRAND
holdup.
3. In order to decrease transaction costs, it’s necessary
to design a set of ex ante rule(for example, rule of Notice
and Counter-Notice)to determine whether the SEP
implementer negotiates royalty with SEP holder in goodfaith and whether the SEP implementer is trying to do
FRAND holdup.
4. In view of the uncertainty and ambiguity of FRAND,
it’s necessary to design a set of ex ante rule (for example,
Notice and Counter-Notice)to stimulate SEP holder and
SEP implementer to successfully negotiate royalty inplace of looking for substantive FRAND licensing
royalty.
1

Microsoft Corp.v.Motorola,Inc.,2013 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 60233(W.D.Wash.Apr.25,2013),Order 21.

2

In economic literature, the problem of hold up generally refers to
the problem that arises out of the interaction between asset
specificity and opportunism, asset specificity means thecondition in which an asset cannot be redeployed from its
presently intended use to some alternative use without a decline
in value. Oliver E. Williamson, The Economic Institutions ofCapitalism 52-56 (Free Press.1985).
3 Mark Lemley and Carl Shapiro, “Patent Holdup and Royalt
y Stacking”, 85 (2007)Texas Law Review 1989;Philippe Ch
appatte, “FRAND Commitments – The Case for Antitrust Interv
ention”, (2009) 2 European Competition Journal; Joseph Farrell et al., ‘Standard Setting, Patents, and Hold-Up’, (2007) 74 Antitru
st Law Journal; Brad Biddle et al. The Expanding Role andImportance of Standards in the Information and Communi
cations Technology Industry,52 Jurimetric 177(2012);Knut B
ling et al. Study on the Interplay Between Standards and I
ntellectual Property Rights, Final Report 62(2011), http://www.iplytics.com/download/docs/studies/ipr_study_final_report_
en.pdf; Gorge L.Contreras, Fixing FRAND:A Pseudo-Pool
Approach to Standards-Based Patent Licensing.79 Antitrust
Law Journal No.1(2013);Joseph Kattan and Chris Wood, St
andard-Essential Patents and the Problem of Hold-up, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2370113;Google/
Motorola Mobility(Case No. COMP/M.6381) Commission
Decision 2012/C 75/01[2012].
4 Case C-170/13, I-8(Huawei Technologies Co.Ltdv.ZTCCorp.a
nd ZTC Deutschland GmbH).http://curia.europa.eu/juris/docu
ment/document.jsf?text=&docid=165911&pageIndex=0&docla
ng=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=85194.Paragra
ph 38.
5 Damien Geradin, Reverse Holdup: The(Often Ignored)Risks
Faced by Innovators in Standardized Areas. SSRN Electron
ic Journal 11/2010;Dol:10.2139/ssrn.1711744;EinerElhauge’s
analysis shows that holdup and stacking problems does notbring about systematically excessive royalties, to the contrary, the royalty rates predicted by the holdup models are often below the true optional rate. Further, those predicted r
oyalty rates are overstated because of incorrect assumptions
about constant demand, one-shot bargaining, and informati
onal symmetry. EinerElhauge, Do Patent holdup and Royalt
y Stacking lead to systematically excessive royalties? Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 4(3), 535-570.
6 To date, the important SSOs in the world include:(1) International Organization for standardization(ISO).
(2) International Electrotechnical Commission(IEC)(3) International Telecommunication Union(ITU)(4) Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers(IEEE-SA)(5) European Telecommunications Standards Institute(ETSI)(6) American National Standards Institute(ANSI)(7) Internet Engineering Task Force(IETF)(8) Organization for the Advancement of Structured
Information Standards(OASIS)(9) VMEBUS International Trade Association(VITA)
7 Supra note 3.
8 Damien GeradinDamien Geradin, supra note 5.
9 Commissioner Joshua Wright of FTC observed in 2013 that,
despite the amount of attention patent holdup has drawn f
rom policymakers and academics, there have been relativel
y few instances of litigate patent holdup among the thousa
nds adopted and empirical evidence of patent holdup is unremarkable. JoshaD.Wright, Comm’r,Fed. Trade Comm’n, Remarks at the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Prop
erty Inaugural Academic Conference: The Commercial Fun● 5 ●IIP Bulletin 2016 Vol.25

ction of Patents in Today’s Innovation Economy 20(Sept.12,2013). http://cpip.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Progra
m-Schedule.pdf.
10 Gregory Sidak, The Meaning of FRAND, Part II: Injunction,
Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 11(1), 2015, at
233.
11 Gregory Sidak, supra note 10, at 233.
12 Gregory Sidak, supra note 10, at 234.
13 TheWorld in 2013: ICT Facts and Figures,
http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFact
sFigures2013-e.pdf;The World in 2014:ICT Facts andFigures,http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/
ICTFactsFigures2014-e.pdf.
14 Dennis W.Carlton and Allan Shampine, Identifying Benchmarks
for Applying Non-Discrimination in FRAND, 8 Competition
POL’INT’L 1,5(2014).
15 Dimien Geradin, supra note 5.
16 EinerElhauge’s analysis supra note 5
17 Cincinnati
Car Co.v.N.Y.Rapid Transit Corp.,66 F.2d
592,595(2d Cir.1993);Jorge L.Contreras, The February of
FRAND,Mar.6.2012,Patently-O Patent Law Blog, at
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2012/03/february-of-frand.html
18 Microsoft Corp.v.Motorola,Inc., Order 10,2013 U.S.Dist.LEXIS
60233(W.D.Wash.Apr.25,2013).
19 平成25年（ネ）第10043号債務不存在確認請求控訴事件.
20 Proportionality principle means that “The size or scope of an IP
right ought to be proportional to the value or significance of thework covered by the right” and “an IPR must not confer on its
holder leverage or power that is grossly disproportionate to whatis deserved in the situation. If an IPR would effectively confer
power or control over a much more vast market or set ofmarkets than what is actually deserved, in light of the work
covered by the IP right, that right must be limited in some way.”
Robert P. Merges, “Justifying Intellectual Property”, Harvard
University Press, 2011. p150, p162.
21 (2013)No.305 YueGaofaMinsanZhongzi.
22 Sandra Badin,Mike Renaud and James Wodarski,”Patent Ho
ld-up or Patent Hold-out? Judege Essex Adds His Voice to
the SEP-FRAND Debate.” http://www.mintz.com/newsletter/2014/Advisories/4096-0714-NAT-IP/index.html.
23 Joseph
S.Miller, StandardSetting, Patents and AccessLock-in:FRAND Licensing and the Theory of the Firm,40
Ind.L.Rev.(2007), Jay P.Kesan and Carol M.Hayes,
FRAND’sForever:Standards, PatentTransfers,and Licensing
Commitments,89 Indiana Law Journal,231(2014).Microsoft
Corp.v.Motorola,Inc.,696 F.3D 872,884-885(9TH Cir.2012).
24 Mark A. Lemley and Carl Shapiro, A Simple Approach to
Setting Reasonable Royalties for Standard-Essential Patents,28
Berkeley Tech.L.j.1135,1144(2013).
25 Supra note 19.
26 Qualcomm
Inc.v.Broadcom Corp., 548 F.3d 1004,
1022-24(Fed.Cir.2011);Article 82 of “Notice for Soliciting
Public Opinions on the Draft Amendment of Patent Law of thePeople' s Republic of China”.
27 Motorola Mobility,L.L.C.,No.121-0120(F.T.C.Jan.3, 2013).
28 Gregory Sidak, supra note 10,at 268-269.
29 Scott K. Peterson, Patents and Standard-Setting Processes(Apr. 18, 2002 Hr'g R.) at 9-10, http://xml.coverpages.org/H
P-ScottPetersonTestimony200204.pdf
30 Article 1 of Japan Patent Law. http://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/hourei/data/PA.pdf
31 John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (rev.ed.1999),at 73-76.Ca
mbridge: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press.

32

John Rawls, supra note 31, at 75.
Robert Folger, Blair H. Sheppard and Robert T. Buttram, Equity,
Equality and Need: Three Faces of Social Justice, in Conflict,
Cooperation, and Justice: Essays Inspired by the work of
Morton Deutsch 261, 272, Barbara Benedict Bunker and Jeffrey
Z. Rubin eds., 1995.
34 Robert Folger, Blair H. Sheppard and Robert T. Buttram, supranote 33: Essays Inspired by the work of Morton Deutsch, 273.
Michelle Maiese, Procedural Justice, http://www.beyondintracta
bility.org/essay/procedural-justice.
35 Michelle Maiese, supra note 34.
36 Michelle Maiese, supra note 34.
37 Jill Howieson, Perceptions of Procedural Justice and Legitimate
in Local Court Mediation, MurdochU.ElectronicJ.L.,Vol
9,No.2(June 2002).
38 Mark Fondacarok, Toward a Synthesis of Law and Social
Science: Due Process and Procedural Justice in the Context of
National Health Care Reform,72 Denv.U.L.Rev.303-305(1995).
39 Supra note 4. Paragraph 71.
40 Supra note 4. Paragraph 67.
41 Supra note 4.
33

● 6 ●

IIP Bulletin 2016 Vol.25