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 2025

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

The tie-up could result in the firm’s German and France-based teams, which both have strong UPC expertise, becoming independent
News of a slowdown in the UK’s clean energy IP landscape and an EPO report on unitary patent uptake were also among the top talking points
Price hikes at ‘big law’ firms are pushing some clients toward boutiques that offer predictable fees, specialised expertise, and a model built around prioritising IP
The Australian side, in particular, can benefit by capitalising on its independent status to bring in more work from Western countries while still working with its former Chinese partner
Koen Bijvank of Brinkhof and Johannes Heselberger of Bardehle Pagenberg discuss the Amgen v Sanofi case and why it will be cited frequently
View the official winners of the 2025 Social Impact EMEA Awards
King & Wood Mallesons will break into two entities, 14 years after a merger between a Chinese and an Australian firm created the combined outfit
Teams from Shakespeare Martineau and DWF will take centre stage in a dispute concerning the registrability of dairy terminology in plant-based products
Senem Kayahan, attorney and founder at PatentSe, discusses how she divides prosecution tasks, and reveals the importance of empathetic client advice
The association’s Australian group has filed a formal complaint against the choice of venue, citing Dubai as an unsafe environment for the LGBTQIA+ community
Gift this article