FRAND terms and conditions definition
Examples of FRAND terms and conditions in a sentence
The IPR policies of each of the Partners Type 1 of one M2M also recognize the importance of respecting the rights of owners of essential/potentially essential IPRs. Thus, the IPR policies seek to balance such rights with the ability of implementers to access essential IPRs under Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms and conditions.
However, now that this lock-in has occurred and alternative 14 technologies have been excluded from the standards, it has become clear that Sisvel 15 never intended to license its alleged SEPs on FRAND terms and conditions.
As a member of ETSI and a participant in 3GPP standardization, in 21 conjunction with the adoption of the 2G, 3G, and 4G standards, InterDigital made 22 submissions to the technical bodies within ETSI, declaring that certain of its patents 23 or patent applications may be or may become essential to the mobile device 24 standards under consideration.2 InterDigital also stated a commitment to license any 25 such essential patents it held on FRAND terms and conditions.
In light 26 of Defendants’ continued unfair, discriminatory, and unreasonable conduct, 27 Continental has no choice but to bring this action in order to confirm its right to a 28 license, and seek a judicial determination of the FRAND terms and conditions for 1 such a license.
Upon information and belief, certain Defendants are directly obligated 6 to license their SEPs on FRAND terms and conditions by virtue of the declarations 8 certain defendants are either successors-in-interest to or otherwise the authorized 9 licensing agents for certain alleged SEPs that were originally declared to be essential 10 to standards by other SEP holders who gave irrevocable FRAND licensing 11 commitments and are obligated to license any SEPs they own or control on FRAND 12 terms and conditions.
InterDigital thus intentionally induced ETSI, 3GPP, their members and 7 affiliates, and anyone implementing any of the standards, including u-blox, to rely 8 on InterDigital’s representation that it had granted and/or would grant licenses on 9 FRAND terms and conditions in developing, adopting, and implementing the 2G, 10 3G, and 4G standards.
Thus, it has become clear that, now that the cellular standards have 2 been approved incorporating InterDigital’s allegedly essential patented technology, 3 and requiring all implementers of those portions of the standard to practice that 4 technology and excluding alternative technologies, InterDigital’s promises to license 5 its allegedly essential patents on FRAND terms and conditions were false.
Continental is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that 18 Defendant Licensors intentionally and falsely represented to the relevant SSOs, such 19 as ETSI, ATIS and/or TIA that if elements of their proprietary technology were 20 included in the cellular standards adopted into standards, they would license such 21 patents to any applicant desiring a license to utilize the standards to produce 22 standard-complaint products on FRAND terms and conditions.