Latest news with #FRAND
Yahoo
28-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Federal Court Dismisses Roku Lawsuit Against Access Advance, Declines to Set Global Patent Pool Pricing
BOSTON, July 28, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Access Advance LLC today announced that the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Roku Inc. seeking to compel the Court to set a global fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) royalty rate for the HEVC Advance Patent Pool. Judge Richard G. Stearns determined that his Court "lacks jurisdiction to determine" a global FRAND royalty rate, noting that the "US patents constitute only a fraction of a larger portfolio." The Court further concluded that its "opinion on the appropriate royalty rate would merely be advisory", which is prohibited under US law. Court Reinforces Limits on Judicial Intervention In December 2024, Roku sued Access Advance LLC, along with patent pool licensors Dolby Laboratories Inc. and Sun Patent Trust, in the District of Massachusetts seeking judicial determination of whether any of the numerous offers the Defendants made to Roku for three separate licenses to global patent portfolios – including the HEVC Advance Patent Pool containing more than 27,500 patents owned by dozens of non-parties to the litigation and issued in 117 different countries and territories – were FRAND, and if it was not, then to set a worldwide FRAND rate. Roku's Massachusetts complaint raised issues already pending for months in three cases involving the same licensors before the European Unified Patent Court ("UPC") in Germany. By seeking a second opinion from the Massachusetts Federal Court, Roku attempted to circumvent the UPC's determination of these same questions, forum shop to address the same or similar disputes in multiple venues, and obtain from the Massachusetts Federal Court an opinion on license terms. In its order dismissing the lawsuit, Judge Stearns determined that the Court does not have jurisdiction to set a global FRAND rate as requested by Roku. The dismissal also effectively precludes any conflict between the Massachusetts lawsuit and the UPC actions well underway in Europe. Strategic Implications for Industry The dismissal signals to potential licensees that the rule of law matters, and litigation is not a tool to avoid good-faith licensing negotiations. It reinforces the notion that patents are territorial and that US courts cannot be used as a vehicle to unilaterally set global FRAND royalty rates for patents held by non-parties in lieu of negotiations. "This is a significant ruling that confirms what we've long understood about the complexities of global patent licensing," said John Kinton, Chief Legal Officer at Access Advance. "We appreciate the court's careful consideration of the jurisdictional challenges involved when dealing with patent portfolios that span more than a hundred countries and involve dozens of patent owners who aren't parties to the litigation." The Roku decision is consistent with the decisions to date in ongoing litigation in the United Kingdom, where Tesla is appealing the UK Appeals Court's affirmance of the UK Patents Court's denial of Tesla's attempt to obtain worldwide FRAND rates for the Avanci patent pool, which does not own any UK patents. The decision adds to a growing body of cases in which national courts are reluctant to set worldwide FRAND rates absent agreement from the parties. This is expected to maintain stability in standards essential patent licensing and encourage good-faith participation in SEP pool licensing negotiations. About Access Advance: Access Advance LLC is an independent licensing administrator company formed to lead the development, administration, and management of patent pools for licensing essential patents of the most important video codec technologies. Access Advance provides a transparent and efficient licensing mechanism for both patent owners and patent implementers. Access Advance manages and administers the HEVC Advance Patent Pool for licensing over 27,500 patents essential to H.265/HEVC technology and the VVC Advance Patent Pool for licensing essential patents to VVC/H.266 technology. The company's Multi-Codec Bridging Agreement provides eligible licensees with a single discounted royalty rate structure for licensees participating in both the HEVC Advance and VVC Advance pools. In addition, Access Advance offers the VDP Pool, a comprehensive licensing solution for video streaming services covering HEVC, VVC, VP9, and AV1 codecs. For more information, please visit: View source version on Contacts Media: Meredith HollanderDirector, Strategic CommunicationsAccess Advance LLCEmail: press@ Website: Licensing Inquiries: Email: licensing@ Sign in to access your portfolio
Business Wire
28-07-2025
- Business
- Business Wire
Federal Court Dismisses Roku Lawsuit Against Access Advance, Declines to Set Global Patent Pool Pricing
BOSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Access Advance LLC today announced that the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Roku Inc. seeking to compel the Court to set a global fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) royalty rate for the HEVC Advance Patent Pool. Judge Richard G. Stearns determined that his Court "lacks jurisdiction to determine" a global FRAND royalty rate, noting that the 'US patents constitute only a fraction of a larger portfolio.' The Court further concluded that its 'opinion on the appropriate royalty rate would merely be advisory', which is prohibited under US law. The dismissal signals to potential licensees that the rule of law matters, and litigation is not a tool to avoid good-faith licensing negotiations. Court Reinforces Limits on Judicial Intervention In December 2024, Roku sued Access Advance LLC, along with patent pool licensors Dolby Laboratories Inc. and Sun Patent Trust, in the District of Massachusetts seeking judicial determination of whether any of the numerous offers the Defendants made to Roku for three separate licenses to global patent portfolios – including the HEVC Advance Patent Pool containing more than 27,500 patents owned by dozens of non-parties to the litigation and issued in 117 different countries and territories – were FRAND, and if it was not, then to set a worldwide FRAND rate. Roku's Massachusetts complaint raised issues already pending for months in three cases involving the same licensors before the European Unified Patent Court ('UPC') in Germany. By seeking a second opinion from the Massachusetts Federal Court, Roku attempted to circumvent the UPC's determination of these same questions, forum shop to address the same or similar disputes in multiple venues, and obtain from the Massachusetts Federal Court an opinion on license terms. In its order dismissing the lawsuit, Judge Stearns determined that the Court does not have jurisdiction to set a global FRAND rate as requested by Roku. The dismissal also effectively precludes any conflict between the Massachusetts lawsuit and the UPC actions well underway in Europe. Strategic Implications for Industry The dismissal signals to potential licensees that the rule of law matters, and litigation is not a tool to avoid good-faith licensing negotiations. It reinforces the notion that patents are territorial and that US courts cannot be used as a vehicle to unilaterally set global FRAND royalty rates for patents held by non-parties in lieu of negotiations. "This is a significant ruling that confirms what we've long understood about the complexities of global patent licensing," said John Kinton, Chief Legal Officer at Access Advance. "We appreciate the court's careful consideration of the jurisdictional challenges involved when dealing with patent portfolios that span more than a hundred countries and involve dozens of patent owners who aren't parties to the litigation." The Roku decision is consistent with the decisions to date in ongoing litigation in the United Kingdom, where Tesla is appealing the UK Appeals Court's affirmance of the UK Patents Court's denial of Tesla's attempt to obtain worldwide FRAND rates for the Avanci patent pool, which does not own any UK patents. The decision adds to a growing body of cases in which national courts are reluctant to set worldwide FRAND rates absent agreement from the parties. This is expected to maintain stability in standards essential patent licensing and encourage good-faith participation in SEP pool licensing negotiations. About Access Advance: Access Advance LLC is an independent licensing administrator company formed to lead the development, administration, and management of patent pools for licensing essential patents of the most important video codec technologies. Access Advance provides a transparent and efficient licensing mechanism for both patent owners and patent implementers. Access Advance manages and administers the HEVC Advance Patent Pool for licensing over 27,500 patents essential to H.265/HEVC technology and the VVC Advance Patent Pool for licensing essential patents to VVC/H.266 technology. The company's Multi-Codec Bridging Agreement provides eligible licensees with a single discounted royalty rate structure for licensees participating in both the HEVC Advance and VVC Advance pools. In addition, Access Advance offers the VDP Pool, a comprehensive licensing solution for video streaming services covering HEVC, VVC, VP9, and AV1 codecs. For more information, please visit:
National Post
28-07-2025
- Business
- National Post
Federal Court Dismisses Roku Lawsuit Against Access Advance, Declines to Set Global Patent Pool Pricing
Article content BOSTON — Access Advance LLC today announced that the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Roku Inc. seeking to compel the Court to set a global fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) royalty rate for the HEVC Advance Patent Pool. Judge Richard G. Stearns determined that his Court 'lacks jurisdiction to determine' a global FRAND royalty rate, noting that the 'US patents constitute only a fraction of a larger portfolio.' The Court further concluded that its 'opinion on the appropriate royalty rate would merely be advisory', which is prohibited under US law. Article content Court Reinforces Limits on Judicial Intervention Article content Article content In December 2024, Roku sued Access Advance LLC, along with patent pool licensors Dolby Laboratories Inc. and Sun Patent Trust, in the District of Massachusetts seeking judicial determination of whether any of the numerous offers the Defendants made to Roku for three separate licenses to global patent portfolios – including the HEVC Advance Patent Pool containing more than 27,500 patents owned by dozens of non-parties to the litigation and issued in 117 different countries and territories – were FRAND, and if it was not, then to set a worldwide FRAND rate. Roku's Massachusetts complaint raised issues already pending for months in three cases involving the same licensors before the European Unified Patent Court ('UPC') in Germany. By seeking a second opinion from the Massachusetts Federal Court, Roku attempted to circumvent the UPC's determination of these same questions, forum shop to address the same or similar disputes in multiple venues, and obtain from the Massachusetts Federal Court an opinion on license terms. Article content In its order dismissing the lawsuit, Judge Stearns determined that the Court does not have jurisdiction to set a global FRAND rate as requested by Roku. The dismissal also effectively precludes any conflict between the Massachusetts lawsuit and the UPC actions well underway in Europe. Article content Strategic Implications for Industry Article content The dismissal signals to potential licensees that the rule of law matters, and litigation is not a tool to avoid good-faith licensing negotiations. It reinforces the notion that patents are territorial and that US courts cannot be used as a vehicle to unilaterally set global FRAND royalty rates for patents held by non-parties in lieu of negotiations. Article content 'This is a significant ruling that confirms what we've long understood about the complexities of global patent licensing,' said John Kinton, Chief Legal Officer at Access Advance. 'We appreciate the court's careful consideration of the jurisdictional challenges involved when dealing with patent portfolios that span more than a hundred countries and involve dozens of patent owners who aren't parties to the litigation.' Article content The Roku decision is consistent with the decisions to date in ongoing litigation in the United Kingdom, where Tesla is appealing the UK Appeals Court's affirmance of the UK Patents Court's denial of Tesla's attempt to obtain worldwide FRAND rates for the Avanci patent pool, which does not own any UK patents. Article content The decision adds to a growing body of cases in which national courts are reluctant to set worldwide FRAND rates absent agreement from the parties. This is expected to maintain stability in standards essential patent licensing and encourage good-faith participation in SEP pool licensing negotiations. Article content About Access Advance: Article content Access Advance LLC is an independent licensing administrator company formed to lead the development, administration, and management of patent pools for licensing essential patents of the most important video codec technologies. Access Advance provides a transparent and efficient licensing mechanism for both patent owners and patent implementers. Article content Access Advance manages and administers the HEVC Advance Patent Pool for licensing over 27,500 patents essential to H.265/HEVC technology and the VVC Advance Patent Pool for licensing essential patents to VVC/H.266 technology. The company's Multi-Codec Bridging Agreement provides eligible licensees with a single discounted royalty rate structure for licensees participating in both the HEVC Advance and VVC Advance pools. In addition, Access Advance offers the VDP Pool, a comprehensive licensing solution for video streaming services covering HEVC, VVC, VP9, and AV1 codecs. For more information, please visit: Article content Article content Article content Article content Media: Article content Article content Article content Email: Article content press@ Article content Article content Website: Article content Article content Article content
Time of India
14-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Delhi HC directs Lava to pay ₹20.03 crore in Dolby patents dispute
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court (HC) has directed homegrown handset maker Lava International Limited to pay $2.3 million (or about ₹20.03 crore) to audio technology firm Dolby for infringing upon the latter's standard essential patents (SEPs) from its advanced audio coding (AAC) portfolio. The Delhi HC observed that Dolby offered Lava a pool-licensing agreement through Via LA, in addition to its bilateral rates compatible with Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) commitment. It said that Lava did not enter into the required license or was unable to reach a good-faith agreement with Dolby, and continued selling devices that the court found to be infringing, without paying royalties. Further, the handset brand obtained a pricing difference with compliant licensees of Dolby, which are market competitors of Lava. 'Accordingly, Lava has not only acted as an unwilling licensee but has also derived an unfair advantage in the market by selling infringing devices without paying the requisite royalties. The conduct of Lava in making its first counter-offer only after the initiation of the present suit clearly reflects an attempt to delay proceedings and is not reflective of good faith behaviour in FRAND licensing negotiations,' Justice Amit Bansal in his judgment pronounced on July 10, 2025, said ETTelecom has reviewed a copy of the judgment. On May 1, 2024, the Court had directed Lava to furnish details of devices sold by the company, which were the subject matter of the suit, along with the sales reports and revenues earned from the sale of such devices. On May 22, 2024, the Court recorded that the negotiations between the parties failed and listed the matter for adjudication. Lava had also volunteered to deposit ₹5.13 per device sold, a proposal that Dolby outrightly rejected for being 'wholly inadequate' and having 'no sound economic basis', with the latter alleging that the proposal did not cover sales of Lava's infringing feature phones. 'Despite being in discussions with Dolby for over five years, Lava failed to propose any quantifiable licensing terms or provide its sales data until the present suit was instituted. Such conduct undermines the very spirit of good faith negotiations that is central to the FRAND framework,' the Court said. '...the total royalty that would be payable by a willing licensee to Dolby would have amounted to $2,340,456.98, which, based on the prevailing exchange rate as on date, would be equivalent to ₹20,08,06,293.9214,' the court said, directing Lava to deposit the sum, covering all past sales from the year 2019 till 2024 with the Delhi HC's Registrar General within eight weeks from the date of judgment. A failure to deposit the amount of the bank guarantee, as per the terms, would entitle Dolby to move an application before the Court for seeking an interim injunction/restraint order against Lava from selling any further devices in India that implement the suit patents. Dolby had sued Lava in May last year, alleging that the smartphone brand had infringed upon eight patents covering its AAC SEPs. The US-headquartered company licenses its patents bilaterally as well as through patent pool operator Via LA Licensing. However, Lava argued that out of eight patents, five had expired prior to the institution of the lawsuit between the two companies. Dolby claimed that it has more than 940 licenses for its advanced audio coding portfolio with multiple entities. Dolby and Lava had been attempting to conclude licensing discussions for the last six years, but failed to reach an agreement.
Time of India
25-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Samsung wins interim licence in UK patent fight with ZTE
LONDON: Samsung Electronics on Wednesday won a ruling from London's High Court in its attempt to get an interim licence to use ZTE 's patents, in the English leg of the firms' global licensing dispute over mobile phone patents . English courts have recently permitted parties to pursue short-term patent licences pending trial, including in Amazon's dispute with Nokia and Lenovo's battle with Ericsson, before both ultimately settled. Wednesday's ruling, though, is the first time in England that a court of first instance - the initial court where a case is heard - has made such an interim licence declaration. Disputes over the fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms of a patent licence have frequently led to global legal battles in the telecom industry. English courts can set global FRAND terms, following a landmark 2020 UK Supreme Court ruling, as can courts in China. Samsung sued ZTE in London in December 2024 seeking a determination of FRAND terms, with ZTE bringing parallel lawsuits against Samsung in China, Germany and Brazil. In London, Samsung sought a declaration that a willing licensor in ZTE's position would agree to an interim licence until FRAND terms were decided by the court. Both Samsung and ZTE had made competing offers for an interim licence, with ZTE's licence requiring FRAND terms to be those determined by a court in China. London's High Court ruled in Samsung's favour on Wednesday, with Judge James Mellor saying that "ZTE have acted in bad faith with their wave of unnecessary injunctive proceedings". The judge added that "ZTE's terms are designed to render this action (in London) pointless, so that Samsung effectively has to abandon it" in favour of accepting the outcome of ZTE's lawsuit in Chongqing in southwestern China. Samsung and ZTE did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
