16 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 1 (2014-2015)

handle is hein.journals/cstlr16 and id is 1 raw text is: 

FRANVD  ROALTIESIVSEP ARBITRATION


                  THE COLUMBIA

 SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

                     LAW REVIEW

VOL.  XVI                    STLR.ORG                      FALL  2014



                            ARTICLE

    LIFTING   CONFIDENTIALITY OF FRAND ROYALTIES IN SEP
                           ARBITRATION

                           Yoonhee   Kim

        No  patent dispute in recent years draws more attention than the
 Smartphone Wars. At the center stage of the Smartphone Wars is the 'fair,
 reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND)    commitment  to  license
 standard-essential patents (SEPs). Later added to the stage is the new form of
 SEP  enforcement targeting small businesses and end-users. As a result, the
 efficacy of FRAND  commitments comes  under criticism from the antitrust
 enforcement agency, leading scholars, and the President of the United States.
        With  a view to breathing lfe into the meaning of FRAND, this
Article explores arguments against confidentiality of FRAND royalties in SEP
arbitration, primarily focusing on an analogy to section 294 of the Patent Act.
Section 294 may provide an adequate platform for this discussion because it
already lfted confidentiality ofpatent validity and infringement in the interest of
the public and  competition. Similarly, lfting confidentiality of FRAND
royalties in SEP arbitration could be an effective measure to tackle unfair
competition and deceptive business practices and to empower the public in the
Smartphone Wars  and in the face of SEP enforcement.


    t   This article may be cited as http://www.stlr.org/cite.cgi?volume=16&
article=1. This work is made   available under the  Creative Commons
Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
    *  J.D., magna cum  laude, American University Washington College of
Law, 2014; B.S., Chemical Engineering, 2005, Seoul National University; Korean
patent attorney, 2005-Present. I would like to thank Professors Jorge Contreras
and Raymond  Bender for their helpful comments and guidance on developing
the arguments of this Article. Thanks also to Andrew Riley for his feedback on
the development of ITC  public interest jurisprudence. Many thanks to the
editors and staff of The Columbia Science & Technology Law Review for their
hard work in editing this piece and constructive criticism. Finally, I am deeply
grateful to my wife Miyoung Park for her love and support.


2 01 4 ]


1

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 2,700 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?