In light of that objective (license before injunction), the procedural challenge that Huawei and ZTE face and try to tackle with their motions (asking the ITC for a stay and the Delaware-based court for expedited FRAND adjudication, knowing that they'll be fine if only one of the motions succeeds) is related to timing. Computer programmers call this a "race condition". It's when a program may crash (or enter an endless loop) because one part of the program only works properly if another one has been completed. In this case, the FRAND rate-setting part would fail if an injunction entered into force before a license agreement has been brought about because the commercial implications of a sales or import ban would require the affected companies to settle on the terms of the patentee, who would be "the dictator of the royalties" in that scenario.
Apple says a Chinese iPhone ban would force a settlement with Qualcomm
I obviously remember Qualcomm's various policy statements and amicus curiae briefs arguing that SEP holders should be entitled to injunctions. The most outrageous one of those bashed Apple at a time when Apple was just a customer--not an adversary--of Qualcomm's, and was subsequently withdrawn. So Qualcomm has no qualms about others being "forced to negotiate under the cloud of an injunction requiring [them] to accept terms to which [they] would not otherwise agree." 2ff7e9595c
Comments