December 13, 2020 by eklose
In addition, the Court clarified that pool licences, as offered to the parent company, are generally appropriate under Huawei. An offer to license a pool cannot in itself be considered abusive (Article 101 of the TFUE) . On the contrary, these licences are generally intended for the interest of potential takers to access the entire standard under one roof under uniform conditions, without the need for each patent holder to obtain an individual licence . In this context, the Court rejected the defendant`s argument that the licence proposed by MPEG LA was not FRAND, as it dealt with both standard and non-essential patents. The Court recognized that the “pooling” of essential and non-essential patents within a patent pool could in principle be incompatible with FRAND if it did so in order to obtain higher royalties for licensees by increasing the number of patents contained in the pool . However, the defendant provided no reliable evidence that this was the case for the MPEG-LA pool . In addition, the Tribunal rejected the defendant`s argument that MPEG LA`s standard licensing agreement was discriminatory as it was proposed to both MPEG LA-Pool members and third party licensees. The Court found that the share of royalties paid to pool members who also signed an MPEG LA licence reflects their contribution to the pool and therefore does not discriminate against licensed third parties (who have not entered patents in the pool) . In this context, the Court also noted that the clauses in MPEG LA`s standard licensing agreement providing for deductions or staggered payments are not discriminatory, not least because they are available to all takers .
MPEG LA submitted that video codecs such as Theora and VP8 violate the patents of their licensees without disclosing the patent or patents concerned.  They then shouted “any party who believes they have essential patents for the VP8 video codec.”  In April 2013, Google and MPEG LA announced an agreement on the VP8 video format.  Under the MPEG-2 Systems patent license, the party that offers MPEG-2 systems to the end user, directly or via Section 1.9, (Section 1.9) is responsible for the royalties on the final product. Section 3.1 of the licensing agreement specifies the timing of royalties for the sublicensing granted in point 2.1. The licence fee is $20 perMPEG-2 Systems mobile signal receiver (defined in section 3.1) and $0.25 per product for all other MPEG-2 devices. The regional court in Dusseldorf issued the injunction against Huawei and found that the STANDARD MPEG THE Stroke licence constituted a FRAND offer from the applicant and that Huawei`s counter-offer was insufficient.