Judge rules on FRAND in Motorola-Microsoft case

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Judge rules on FRAND in Motorola-Microsoft case

A US judge has issued a ruling on royalties in a dispute between Motorola and Microsoft, in the first decision on FRAND rates for standard-essential patents

On Thursday April 25, Judge James L Robart of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled that Microsoft had to pay Motorola Mobility $1.8 million a year for the use of standard-essential patents relating to the H.264 video standard and the 802.11 wireless standard.

Microsoft used the technologies in its Xbox and Windows products.

Motorola had sought some $4 billion in royalties but Robart calculated that the FRAND rate for the H.264 patents should be .0555 cents per unit. The rate for the 802.11 patents should be 3.471 cents for each Xbox and 0.8 cents for other products

Patent owners and licensees in the computer and telecoms industries are engaged in numerous disputes over standard-essential patents, which have to be licensed on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.

This is the first case to determine how FRAND royalty rates should be calculated. Other cases pending include a dispute between Apple and Motorola in the US, and one between IPCom and Nokia in the UK.

For more analysis, see Florian Mueller’s Foss Patents blog.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Partner Rob Jacob unveils plans to offer a beginning-to-end trademark service, how to make prosecution profitable, and why IP ‘buy-in’ from the CEO stands the firm in good stead
Sponsored by CAS
CAS provides practical pointers on how intellectual property and R&D teams can work in tandem to unlock tangible benefits and avoid wasted spend
Sponsored by CAS
CAS explores how AI is transforming intellectual property, from inventorship and copyright disputes to new demands on patent attorneys
Sponsored by That.Legal
Gillian Tan of That.Legal discusses a recent decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore and what it reveals about the evidential burden in bad-faith trademark claims
Attorneys at Di Blasi, Parente & Associados share how the protection of trade secrets strengthens innovation by bringing together legal practice, regulatory developments, and established international references
Jin Ooi, who joins as a partner today, said he is excited to offer a ‘rounded’ IP service as the firm deepens its litigation expertise in the UK and Europe
As generics celebrate, practitioners believe innovator companies should brace for an ‘uphill battle’ when trying to prove induced infringement
A team from Cooley shares how they overturned a massive damages award by emphasising that the opposing company’s trade secrets claims were time-barred
Sponsored by Licks Attorneys
Eduardo Hallak, Rafaella Oliveira, and Laís Souza of Licks Attorneys explain how the provision operates in practice, highlighting evidential hurdles and best practices for patent applicants
Sponsored by Liu, Shen & Associates
Chunyu Cui and Ziqing Wu of Liu, Shen & Associates say recent trends in China’s intellectual property courts indicate alignment with international standards and send a clear signal to the global market
Gift this article