19-08-30 Dolby Labs Acb

Case: 19-16122, 08/30/2019, ID: 11416770, DktEntry: 84, Page 1 of 39
19-16122
d
IN THE
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
—v.—
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, A Delaware corporation,

Defendant-Appellant,
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD.;
SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR INC.; INTEL CORPORATION; ERICSSON, INC.;
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; MEDIATEK INC.,
Intervenors,
NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY,

Intervenor.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (KOH, J.)
DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE DOLBY LABORATORIES, INC.

IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY
GARRARD R. BEENEY
AKASH M. TOPRANI
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, New York 10004
(212) 558-4000
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
Dolby Laboratories, Inc.
August 30, 2019
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Dolby Laboratories, Inc. does not have any parent corporations, and no
publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ..........................................................i
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE .......................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................4
I. The District Court Erred by Concluding that Qualcomm’s FRAND
Commitments Impose a Contractual Obligation to License at the
Chip Level .....................................................................................................11
The Plain Language of the Relevant FRAND Contracts is

Satisfied by Licensing End-User Device Manufacturers and
Sellers ..................................................................................................11
Extrinsic Evidence Confirms that FRAND Does Not

Require Licensing at the Component Level ........................................16
Worldwide Industry Practice Reflects No Component

Level Licensing Requirement ...................................................16
The District Court Disregarded Relevant Evidence of

Widespread Practice in Multiple Industries ..............................19
The District Court’s Interpretation of the TIA and

ATIS IPR Policies Fails to Maintain their Required
Consistency with Other IPR and Patent Policies ......................23
The District Court’s Ruling Misapplied Appellate Precedent ............ 25
The Microsoft and Ericsson Decisions Are Not

Relevant ....................................................................................25
Authority Not Cited by the District Court Rejects

Component Licensing Requirements ........................................27
II. If Affirmed, the District Court’s Ruling Would Upend Licensing

Practices Across Numerous Markets and Mandate Inefficient
Licensing........................................................................................................28
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................31
-ii-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
California Lettuce Growers, Inc. v. Union Sugar Co.,

45 Cal.2d 474 (1955) ..........................................................................................20
Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Research Organisation v. Cisco

Sys., Inc.,
809 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 27-28
Crocker-Woolworth Nat. Bank v. Nevada Bank,

139 Cal. 564 (1903) ......................................................................................21, 23
Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,

773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 26-27
Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc.,
620 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..........................................................................29
Gerawan Farming Partners, Inc. v. Westchester Surplus Lines
Ins. Co.,
2008 WL 80711 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2008) ...........................................................20
HTC Corp. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson,

2019 WL 126980 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2019) ........................................................23
Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P.,
2019 WL 1877309 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2019)....................................................28
Koninklijke Philips NV v. Asustek Computer Inc., [2016] EWHC 2220

(Pat) .....................................................................................................................15
Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc.,

696 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2012) ........................................................................ 25-26
Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola Inc.,
795 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................25
Midwest Television, Inc. v. Scott, Lancaster, Mills & Atha, Inc.,

205 Cal. App. 3d 442 (1988) ..............................................................................21
-iii-
Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co., 69
Cal. 2d 33, 40 (1968) ..........................................................................................24
Security Com. & Sav. Bank v. Southern Trust & Com. Bank,
74 Cal. App. 734 (1925) .....................................................................................21
Webster v. Klassen,
109 Cal. App. 2d 583 (1952) ..............................................................................21
Statutes and Rules
35 U.S.C.
§ 271(a) .................................................................................................................6
§ 284.................................................................................................................. 6-7
Fed. R. App. P.
29(a)(4)(E) ............................................................................................................1
29(a)(2) .................................................................................................................1
Government Publications
Guangdong High People’s Court, Working Guidelines on the Trial of
Standard Essential Patent Disputes (Trial Implementation) (Apr.
26, 2018), http://www.iprdaily.cn/article_18855.html .......................................18
European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic
and Social Committee: Setting out the EU Approach to Standard
Essential Patents (Nov. 29, 2017), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52 017DC0712&from=GA .................8, 18
Japan Patent Office, Guide to Licensing Negotiations Involving

Standard Essential Patents (June 5, 2018),
https://www.jpo.go.jp/e/system/laws/rule/guideline/patent/docume
nt/ seps-tebiki/guide-seps-en.pdf .................................................................. 18-19
U.S. Dep’t of Justice and Fed. Trade Comm’n, Antitrust Enforcement

and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and
Competition (Apr. 5, 2007), https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-
enforcement-and-intellectual-property-rights-promoting-
innovation-and-competition ............................................................................8, 18
-iv-
Other
Avanci, “FAQ,” http://avanci.com/faq/ ...................................................................17

Gavin Clarkson & Joshua Newberg, Blunt Machetes in the Patent
Thicket: Modern Lessons from the History of Patent Pool
Litigation in the United States Between 1900 and 1970, 22 J. Tech.
L. & Pol’y 1, 2-3 (2018) .....................................................................................11
Hogan Lovells, “Guangdong Court Issues new Guidance for Standard

Essential Patent Disputes” (May 2018),
https://www.hoganlovells.com/en/publications/~/media/15a4dfbf4
8264596a8c1137051b39451.ashx ......................................................................18
HEVC Advance, “HEVC Advance Program Overview 10,”

https://www.hevcadvance.com/pdfnew/HEVC_Advance_
Program_Overview.pdf ......................................................................................17
Via Group, “AAC Frequently Asked Questions,” http://www.via-
corp.com/licensing/aac/faq.html ........................................................................16
Via Group, “IEEE 802.11 standard,” http://www.via-

corp.com/us/en/licensing/ieee-80211/overview.html .........................................17
MPEG LA, “DisplayPort FAQ,”

https://www.mpegla.com/programs/displayport/faq/ .........................................17
One-Blue, “One-Blue License Program,” https://www.one-

blue.com/license-programs/ ................................................................................17
-v-
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE 1
Founded in 1965 and headquartered in California, Dolby Laboratories, Inc.
(“Dolby”) has a long history of innovation, delivering a series of new and superior
products in numerous technologies, including audio and video compression and
noise reduction, to consumers around the globe. From its beginnings in addressing
analog noise reduction, to path-breaking digital surround sound in cinemas, to
today’s applications which stream content to mobile devices and the home, Dolby
has continued to bring value to consumers by introducing multiple generations of
new fundamental technologies that enable superior consumer experiences in content
ecosystems across industries. Since its founding, Dolby has relied upon legal
protections for its intellectual property to further fuel cutting-edge research and as a
means to bring its innovations into the hands of consumers.
Dolby has been an innovator not only in technology, but also in the way Dolby
shares its innovations and technologies with market participants. For example, over
its history, Dolby has shared its technology and expertise with a variety of standard
development organizations (“SDOs”), and allowed others access to that technology
1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a)(4)(E), Dolby Labs affirms
that no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and that no person
other than amicus or its counsel contributed any money to fund its preparation or
submission. Additionally, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a)(2),
all parties have consented to the filing of this amicus brief.
through both patent pools and Dolby licensing programs. As a result of Dolby’s
participation in SDOs, these organizations have standardized technologies which
have benefited from Dolby’s contributions, thereby enabling a wide array of industry
participants to bring new and innovative products to consumers.
As a result of its history of innovation, Dolby has been awarded and owns
multiple patents. Because Dolby’s inventions have been widely adopted by many
SDOs as the best or superior technological solution to the challenges of innovation,
Dolby also owns many patents that are essential to the practice of several SDO
standards, known as standard essential patents (“SEPs”).
Dolby submits this brief to address the district court’s improper holding that
Qualcomm’s assurances pursuant to the intellectual property rights (“IPR”) policies
of two SDOs, the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (“ATIS”)
and the Telecommunications Industry Association (“TIA”), require Qualcomm to
license its SEPs to chipset manufacturers. The district court’s construction of
Qualcomm’s assurances misconstrues the contractual language at issue and thereby
incorrectly limits the ability of licensors and licensees to determine how to best
structure their licensing arrangements to bring new technologies and products to
market.
Undoubtedly, Qualcomm has provided assurances that it will license its SEPs
for standards adopted by ATIS and TIA on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory
-2-
terms (“FRAND”), to further enable widespread adoption of the SDO standards in
consumer products. These assurances, however, do not prescribe to whom in the
product manufacturing chain a license must be offered. Dolby firmly believes that
collaborative standard setting and new product introduction works best when market
participants are free to adopt the license structure that suits their needs, whether this
be licensing end products or licensing components that are incorporated into those
end products. This historical flexibility has not only enabled widespread distribution
of new technologies to consumers, but also has encouraged innovators’ participation
in SDOs’ development of superior technologies by giving them flexibility within the
general FRAND license requirements they agree to. By interpreting Qualcomm’s
assurances as requiring Qualcomm to license SEPs to chip manufacturers, the
district court eliminated the important flexibility of patentees to determine where in
the product manufacturing and distribution chain to license products incorporating
the SDO standard. Dolby submits this brief to point out not only how the district
court’s erroneous interpretation of the relevant agreements is at odds with the
contractual language and decades of established and successful industry practice, but
also how imposing a general duty to license at a particular point in the product
manufacturing chain would disrupt the efficient licensing models that private
industry has adopted in many contexts.
-3-
INTRODUCTION
In its decision granting summary judgment, the district court held that, as a
matter of law and contract interpretation, the assurances Qualcomm made pursuant
to the TIA and ATIS IPR policies require Qualcomm to license its SEPs to modem
chip suppliers. ER273. This holding is incorrect as a matter of contract
interpretation, inconsistent with established industry practice, and would impose
multiple inefficient licensing requirements and discourage innovators’ participation
in SDO technology development.
The district court’s decision relies upon a reading of “non-discrimination” in
the FRAND commitment that is at odds with the long-held understanding of market
participants, and that is inconsistent with industry practice in many fields that rely
upon standards. In contrast to the established understanding that non-discrimination
relates to the terms offered to similarly situated licensees (and does not inform to
whom a license must be offered), the district court interpreted non-discrimination as
imposing “an obligation to license all who seek a license, including competing
modem chip suppliers.” ER265.
By its terms, however, the relevant IPR policies do not mandate licensing to
“all” applicants, and the policies and Qualcomm’s assurances expressly require
licensing only to a particular and defined class of implementers of the standard. In
-4-
the IPR policies relevant here, those entitled to rely on Qualcomm’s assurances are
end product manufacturers and sellers, not chip makers.
The district court’s interpretation is not only at odds with contractual
language, but it also conflicts with how that and similar language has been
understood as a matter of industry practice: SEP licensing is normally done in many
industries at the end-product level. This is because, for a variety of legal and
practical reasons, SEP licensors seek to obtain a royalty for the use of its SEPs at
only one point in the product manufacturing chain rather than from multiple portions
or components of a product that use or incorporate the patented technology. For
example, with regard to the mobile communications standards at issue in this
litigation, an SEP owner could obtain a royalty-bearing license from the
manufacturer of a chipset that uses the patent, the manufacturer of a component that
may include the chipset, or from the smartphone that includes the component or
chipset, but generally not from more than one on a specific patent. For a variety of
practical reasons discussed below, industry custom has been to seek a FRAND
royalty and SEP license from the end-unit manufacturer or seller, and the contractual
language of Qualcomm’s assurances recognizes the flexibility industry practice has
adopted. However, the district court’s ruling, if left undisturbed, will put SEP
licensors in an inefficient situation of requiring a FRAND license to any chip,
-5-
component or end-product manufacturer, even though all such applicants contribute
to the same end product.
Moreover, following the district court’s newly imposed rule is far from
straightforward. When product and component manufacturers implement open
standards, not only would it be difficult and costly to determine which devices have
been licensed as a result of chip or component licensing, but complexities of
determining which SEPs may be infringed by which participants in the product
manufacturing chain require expensive and time-consuming solutions that generally
are obviated by end-product licensing. The standardized functionality in many of
the smartphones at issue here results from the interaction of hardware, software, and
firmware that is often obtained from complex supply networks around the globe and
not combined together until production of the end device. Thus, it is difficult and
costly to determine whether—and to what extent—any subassembly or component
may actually infringe an SEP.
What is straightforward is that fully-assembled and operational end-products
practice the standards that they are certified to practice. And, by extension, they
infringe the patents essential to those standards. The patent statute, 35 U.S.C.
§ 271(a), establishes that “whoever without authority makes [or] uses . . . any
patented invention . . . infringes the patent,” and 35 U.S.C. § 284 establishes that, in
the event of infringement, “the court shall award . . . claimant damages adequate to
-6-
compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for
the use made of the invention by the infringer.” Thus, under the law, an SEP owner
is entitled to a reasonable royalty to compensate for the infringement by sale and use
of end-products. In most cases, it is most efficient for both licensees and licensors
that the license bearing this statutory-afforded royalty be negotiated between the
SEP owner and the end-product manufacturer.
As a result, countless licensors who have offered FRAND commitments to
SDOs typically choose to license their SEPs at the end-product level for multiple
reasons. These include: (i) conforming to long-established market practice and
expectations; (ii) seeking fair royalties for patents through basing royalty rates on
the product which fully reflects the value of standardized technology and benefits
from the patented invention; (iii) the ability to track end products in worldwide
licensing programs and thereby determine which products are or are not licensed;
and (iv) the ability of end-product manufacturers to appropriately price their
products to include the cost of intellectual property based on the value of the SEP to
their products.
These practices are fully in accord with the purpose of SDO FRAND policies.
Antitrust agencies around the world have long-recognized that the purpose of the
FRAND commitment is to mitigate the risk of patent hold up during the standard
setting process as a result of a patented technology being incorporated into a
-7-
standard, while encouraging both use of the standardized technology and innovators’
widespread SDO participation to develop new technologies by enabling a fair return
on licensing IP. See U.S. Dep’t of Justice and Fed. Trade Comm’n, Antitrust
Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and
Competition, at Ch. 2 § IV.B. (Apr. 5, 2007), https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-
enforcement-and-intellectual-property-rights-promoting-innovation-and-
competition (“2007 DOJ/FTC Report”). As the European Commission has
explained:
Standards ensure that interoperable and safe technologies

are widely disseminated among companies and
consumers. Patents provide R&D with incentives and
enable innovative companies to receive an adequate return
on investments. . . .
Smooth licensing practices are therefore essential to
guarantee fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory access
to standardised technologies and to reward patent holders
so they continue to invest in R&D and standardization
activities.
European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee: Setting
out the EU Approach to Standard Essential Patents” at 1-2 (Nov. 29, 2017),
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017DC0712
&from=GA (“EC Communication”). Prior to this litigation, there has been no
-8-
similar understanding that the FRAND commitment was meant to impose a
requirement to license anyone other than end-product manufacturers.
The district court’s summary judgment opinion below casts a shadow over
these well-established global licensing practices. The determination that
Qualcomm’s FRAND commitments constituted contractual obligations to license
Qualcomm’s SEPs to chip suppliers, as opposed to allowing Qualcomm to license
end-user device manufacturers, was wrong for multiple reasons.
First, the plain language of the IPR policies at issue provide an obligation to
license only those who “practice” or “implement” the two standards at issue. In the
context here, it is end products that implement and practice the standards, and
generally not components.
Second, extrinsic evidence, properly evaluated under California law,
demonstrates that there is no FRAND contractual obligation to license components.
The purposes of FRAND policies—to encourage wide use of the standard, avoid
blocking implementation of the standard, and encourage innovators to participate in
SDO activities by allowing a fair return on their SEPs—is completely fulfilled by
licensing end-products. Reflecting the benefits of end-product licensing and how it
serves the purpose of FRAND, industry has for decades licensed SEPs at the end-
product level where appropriate.
-9-
Third, the district court misconstrued this and other courts’ precedents as
requiring that SEPs be licensed at the component level. There is no such authority;
to the contrary, decisions of U.S. courts as well as guidance from government
agencies around the world confirm that SEPs are not required to be licensed at any
particular level, and certainly not at the component level.
Finally, the decision below would wreak havoc on successful and
pro-competitive licensing models developed over decades that license SEPs subject
to FRAND commitments only to end products. Licensing SEPs on FRAND terms
to end-product manufacturers has been a consistent aspect of many industries and a
material contribution to their success, allowing widespread consensual licensing on
mutually-agreed and fair terms, and avoiding expensive infringement litigation.
Those end-product licenses have worked well, enabling competitive markets,
widespread use of standards, fair return to owners of SEP, and continued innovation.
As shown below, mandating licensing at the chip level would upset this careful
historical balance and create multiple inefficiencies, costs and uncertainties in
worldwide licenses of SEPs.
While the ultimate remedy imposed by the district court may be appropriate
in certain circumstances, 2 this Court should clarify that the FRAND licensing
2
Dolby expresses no opinion about the circumstances under which the antitrust laws
impose a duty to deal with competitors, and whether, in a particular case, mandating
-10-
policies at issue do not, as a matter of contract, require licensing at the chip or
component level.
ARGUMENT
I. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED BY CONCLUDING THAT
QUALCOMM’S FRAND COMMITMENTS IMPOSE A
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO LICENSE AT THE CHIP
LEVEL
The Plain Language of the Relevant FRAND Contracts is

Satisfied by Licensing End-User Device Manufacturers and
Sellers
Dolby has agreed to multiple FRAND commitments to several SDOs, and the
exact nature of those obligations naturally depends on the specific contractual
language in each FRAND commitment. As a general matter, however, while those
commitments permit FRAND licensing to anyone, Dolby generally does not
understand these commitments to require offering a license on FRAND terms to
each participant in the product manufacturing chain. Consistent with this
understanding, Dolby has entered into thousands of licenses with end-product
manufacturers, both through bilateral agreements and through patent pools,3 thereby
licensing to a competitor may be an appropriate remedy for an adjudicated violation

of the antitrust laws.
3
Patent pools consist of “pools” of patents, typically SEPs, owned by multiple
licensors which are licensed in a single, worldwide standardized license by the pool
administrator. See Gavin Clarkson & Joshua Newberg, Blunt Machetes in the Patent
Thicket: Modern Lessons from the History of Patent Pool Litigation in the United
-11-
permitting those licensees to use Dolby’s SEPs when implementing standardized
technologies.
The FRAND license obligation in this case arises from Qualcomm’s
assurances to ATIS and TIA. ER252. As noted by the district court, ATIS and TIA
are both SDOs that facilitate the creation of technical standards for certain cellular
communications. ER251.
In relevant part, Qualcomm’s assurances concerning its ATIS SEPs
incorporate language from the ATIS IPR policy, which requires an SEP holder to
provide “assurance that a license to each essential patent claim(s) will be made
available to applicants desiring to utilize the license for the purpose of implementing
the standard . . . under reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of
any unfair discrimination.” ER1031.
Similarly, Qualcomm’s assurances concerning its TIA SEPs arise from the
TIA IPR policy, which requires that an SEP holder provide a commitment to license
“all applicants under terms and conditions that are reasonable and non-
discriminatory, which may include monetary compensation, and only to the extent
necessary for the practice of any or all of the Normative portions for the field of use
of practice of the Standard.” ER1038-1039.
States Between 1900 and 1970, 22 J. Tech. L. & Pol’y 1, 2-3 (2018). As shown
infra, virtually all SEP pools license only at the end-product level.
-12-
In the context of the standards at issue, these policies by their terms are
satisfied by licensing at the end-product level because only end products “practice”
or “implement” “the” standard as promulgated by the SDO. Indeed, it was
uncontested below that a component chip does not by itself complete the relevant
ATIS and TIA standards: as the district court found, component manufacturers do
not “themselves ‘practice’ or ‘implement’ whole standards.” ER271 (emphasis
added). 4 Instead, a standard-compliant device such as a smartphone at issue here
typically uses many different components that, working together, implement the
relevant standards. See ER265 (“A single standard can implicate perhaps hundreds,
if not thousands of patents.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Despite these factual determinations, the district court nevertheless found that
the language of Qualcomm’s FRAND commitments at issue required component
licensing based on two fundamental errors. First, the district court reasoned that
licensing only end-user device manufacturers “violates the non-discrimination
obligation” under the IPR policies—i.e., concluding that an SEP holder cannot
discriminate by refusing a license to a component manufacturer while offering one
4
Use of the term “whole standards” is redundant. There is no suggestion that the
SDOs at issue intended “implementing” or “practicing” “the standard” to be less
than the entire standard. In sum, “the standard” is the standard, not part of the
standard.
-13-
to an end-user device manufacturer. ER271. That reading misconstrues the import
of the non-discrimination obligation in the TIA and ATIS policies. The FRAND
obligation requires non-discrimination among those entitled to a license; it does not
inform who must be offered a license. 5 Indeed, even the FTC recognized that the
TIA and ATIS IPR policies do not require that FRAND licenses be offered to all
applicants, explicitly acknowledging that the FRAND licensing obligation does not
apply to “applicants that wish to implement other standards.” FTC Summ. J. Reply
Br., Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-cv-00220, ECF No. 893 at 8
(N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2018) (emphasis in original). Qualcomm was actually entitled to
limit its FRAND license under the explicit terms of the IPR policies at issue to a
specific class of those implementing or practicing the standards at issue. Thus, the
determination below conflated the issue of what is mandated by FRAND when it
does apply with the question of to whom a FRAND license must be offered. The
non-discrimination provisions of the IPR Policies at issue are silent on the latter
point.
5
See ER1031 (patent holder must license only “applicants desiring to utilize the
license for the purpose of implementing the standard,” and those licenses must be
on FRAND terms); ER1038-1039 (patent holder must license “all applicants” under
FRAND terms, but “only to the extent necessary for the practice of . . . the
Standard”).
-14-
Second, the district court focused on specific language in the TIA IPR policy
(but not in the ATIS IPR policy), which provides that a license must be granted for
“the practice of any or all of the Normative portions” of the standard “for the field
of use of practice of the standard.” ER272 (emphasis by district court). This, the
district court concluded, showed that the license obligation is not restricted to those
who practice or implement the “whole” standard, but extends to those who practice
only a “portion” of the standard. But the court failed to recognize the TIA IPR
policy’s definition of “Normative” refutes any such conclusion. As another court
explained, the function of the “Normative” language is to clarify that a patentee has
a FRAND obligation to those practicing the standard even if the standard is
implemented by using an “optional” element of the standard, i.e., using an alternative
way to completely practice or implement the standard. See Koninklijke Philips NV
v. Asustek Computer Inc., [2016] EWHC 2220 (Pat) ¶ 57 (normative language used
“to make it explicit that a patent was necessarily infringed by the practice of an
‘optional’ element of a standard was nonetheless still an ‘essential’ patent”).
In other words, the language relied upon by the district court provides no more
than that a device manufacturer practicing or implementing “the standard” through
one or more normative portions is entitled to a license. Use of “normative portions”
does not imply that the FRAND obligation requires extending a license to those who
do not implement or practice the standard but only a portion of it. To the contrary,
-15-
as described in the very provisions relied upon by the district court, licenses may be
restricted to only those that “practice the standard.”
In sum, the language of the TIA and ATIS IPR and FRAND policies does not
mandate licensing at the chip or component level.
Extrinsic Evidence Confirms that FRAND Does Not Require

Licensing at the Component Level
Worldwide Industry Practice Reflects No Component Level

Licensing Requirement
The consistent experience of Dolby, a licensor to thousands of licenses under
SEPs, is that FRAND licensing of SEPs takes place at the end-product level. For
example, Dolby has several bilateral patent licensing programs for its patents that
are essential to standardized technologies such as HEVC (a video coding
technology) and AAC (an audio coding technology), which license end products.
In addition to its own licensing programs, Dolby also licenses its SEPs
through patent pools, by licensing its SEPs in a joint license with multiple other SEP
owners. Those programs—administered by patent pool administrators such as Via
Licensing, MPEG LA and HEVC Advance—also license almost exclusively at the
end-product level notwithstanding that many or all of the SEPs licensed through
these pools are subject to SDO FRAND commitments.6
6
See, e.g., Via Group, AAC Frequently Asked Questions,” http://www.via-
corp.com/licensing/aac/faq.html (“Who must sign a license? An AAC patent license
-16-
In combination, these pools and licensing programs license end products
across numerous industries and applications, including smartphones, to a multitude
of licensees. 7 These end-product licenses include portfolios of patents subject to the
same or similar FRAND commitments at issue in this case.
Dolby’s experience and those of other licensors as reflected in the patent pools
described above—that FRAND does not require component licensing—is consistent
with worldwide governmental agency guidance on the requirements of FRAND. For
example, although the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division and Federal
is needed by manufacturers or developers of end-user encoder and/or decoder

products.”); Via Group, “IEEE 802.11 standard,” http://www.via-
corp.com/us/en/licensing/ieee-80211/overview.html (“Via Licensing offers this
patent licensing program to manufacturers of end user products that implement the
IEEE 802.11 standard.”); MPEG LA, “DisplayPort FAQ,”
https://www.mpegla.com/programs/displayport/faq/ (“Q: Who signs the
DisplayPort Patent Portfolio License? A: A company offering branded or other end
products that use the DisplayPort technologies would sign the DisplayPort Patent
Portfolio License.”); One-Blue, “One-Blue License Program,” https://www.one-
blue.com/license-programs/ (offering licensing terms for “products that conform to
the UHD Standard Specifications, BD Standard Specifications, DVD Standard
Specifications and the CD Standard Specifications applicable to BD and UHD
products”); HEVC Advance, “HEVC Advance Program Overview 10,”
https://www.hevcadvance.com/pdfnew/HEVC_Advance_Program_Overview.pdf
(“TOPIC: What do we License – Devices . . . We license HEVC Decoders and
Encoders in Consumer HEVC Products”); Avanci, “FAQ,” http://avanci.com/faq/
(“Who should obtain a license from Avanci? Manufacturers who are creating
products for the Internet of Things and including wireless connectivity in their new
devices should take a license from Avanci.”).
7
See n.6, supra.
-17-
Trade Commission have issued multiple guidelines and statements regarding
FRAND licensing (see, e.g., 2007 DOJ/FTC Report, supra), Dolby is not aware of
either agency (other than the FTC in this case) asserting that FRAND requires chip
or component licensing.
Multiple international government agencies are in accord. For example, the
European Commission has set out multiple licensing guidelines and requirements
for SEPs, but imposes no obligation to license at the component level. See generally
EC Communication, supra.
Similarly, a Chinese Court that regularly addresses FRAND issues recently
issued guidance on SEPs, which implicitly recognizes that FRAND licensing may
be at the end-product level, and, while establishing multiple requirements and
guidelines, suggests no FRAND obligation on the patentee to license at the chip or
component level. See Guangdong High People’s Court, Working Guidelines on the
Trial of Standard Essential Patent Disputes (Trial Implementation) (Apr. 26, 2018),
http://www.iprdaily.cn/article_18855.html; see also Hogan Lovells, “Guangdong
Court Issues new Guidance for Standard Essential Patent Disputes” (May 2018),
https://www.hoganlovells.com/en/publications/~/media/15a4dfbf48264596a8c113
7051b39451.ashx.
Likewise, the Japan Patent Office specifically determined that SEP licensing
does not require licensing at the component level: “In general, the rights holder is
-18-
in the position to decide with which party in the supply chain it signs an agreement,
e.g., end product manufacturer, component manufacturers, or subcomponent
manufacturer.” Japan Patent Office, Guide to Licensing Negotiations Involving
Standard Essential Patents, at 24 (June 5, 2018), https://www.jpo.go.jp
/e/system/laws/rule/guideline/patent/document/seps-tebiki/guide-seps-en.pdf; see
also id. at 13 (recognizing the potential need for the “implementer” in licensing
negotiations with the “rights holder” to obtain technical information from the
“implementer’s” component suppliers).
While this worldwide guidance does not bind this Court to a particular
contractual interpretation, it is persuasive evidence of parties’ intent in entering into
FRAND commitments. Moreover, because the bulk of SEP licensing is worldwide,
international practice and guidance is relevant, and harmonization of worldwide
requirements for these licenses is important.
The District Court Disregarded Relevant Evidence of

Widespread Practice in Multiple Industries
Qualcomm offered testimony from several SEP holders that licenses pursuant
to SDO FRAND commitments are generally made available for the manufacture and
sale of end-user devices, but not for the manufacture and sale of components. See
Qualcomm Summ. J. Opp. Br., Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-cv-
00220, ECF No. 870 at 8-10 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2018) (“Qualcomm SJ Opp.”).
This is consistent with the Dolby’s experiences and observation, and was
-19-
acknowledged by the FTC’s own expert, who admitted that industry “practice to date
is—has been people take licenses at the device level.” Donaldson Dep. Tr., Fed.
Trade Comm’n v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-cv-00220, ECF No. 870-2 at 283:17-24
(N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2018). Nevertheless, the district court discounted this evidence
entirely.
The district court should have credited this persuasive evidence. Under
California law, 8 it is well established that evidence of industry practice “is always
admissible . . . as a means of [contract] interpretation where it does not alter or vary
the terms of the contract.” Gerawan Farming Partners, Inc. v. Westchester Surplus
Lines Ins. Co., 2008 WL 80711, at *15 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2008) (quoting California
Lettuce Growers, Inc. v. Union Sugar Co., 45 Cal.2d 474, 482 (1955)). The district
court’s two reasons for discounting this extrinsic evidence do not withstand scrutiny.
First, the district court discounted Qualcomm’s evidence because “none of
those assertions are tethered to an interpretation of any IPR policy.” ER270. This
misses the point; industry practice prevalent at the time that Qualcomm granted its
FRAND assurances (and at the time that ATIS and TIA adopted their IPR policies)
informs each of the parties’ expectations of what those agreements meant. This
evidence shows that end-product licensing was an accepted norm across multiple
8
Dolby takes no position on appropriate choice of law, but follows the parties’ and
district court’s application of California law.
-20-
industries. There would be no need to have an explicit and unambiguous statement
of intention from ATIS or TIA to confirm that its policies were consistent with
industry practice; indeed, to be contrary to industry practice (and consistent with the
district court’s holding), one would expect the relevant SDOs to explicitly state that
there is a requirement to license components, but there is no record evidence of ATIS
or TIA making any such statement. See Midwest Television, Inc. v. Scott, Lancaster,
Mills & Atha, Inc., 205 Cal. App. 3d 442, 451 (1988) (“Generally, when there is a
custom in a certain industry, those engaged in that industry are deemed to have
contracted in reference to that practice unless the contrary appears.”).
Second, the district court identified specific exceptions to the general industry
practice that Qualcomm’s evidence established, ER269-271, and consequently
concluded that the general practice of end-product licensing was therefore not
sufficiently “certain, uniform, . . . or generally known and notorious” as to be
“regarded as part of the contract,” ER270 (quoting Webster v. Klassen, 109 Cal.
App. 2d 583, 589 (1952)). In so doing, the court misapplied California law.
The term “uniform,” as used by the court in Webster, does not mean “without
any exceptions.” This rule traces back to Crocker-Woolworth Nat. Bank v. Nevada
Bank, 139 Cal. 564 (1903).9 In that case, the California Supreme Court distinguished
9
In relevant part, Webster cites to Security Com. & Sav. Bank v. Southern Trust &
Com. Bank, 74 Cal. App. 734, 749 (1925), which in turn relies on Crocker.
-21-
“uniform” from “well-nigh universal,” finding that evidence of “uniform” practice
can admit to exceptions while still being informative. Id. at 582. Indeed, the Crocker
court suggested that not even “uniform” conduct was necessarily required for
industry custom to be relevant to contractual interpretation; the court considered
certain evidence of custom that, despite not being “uniform practice,” was “certainly
the general practice.” Id.
In addition to misapplying controlling law, the district court cited no
persuasive evidence contradicting the “uniform” practice of end-product licensing.
The district court placed great emphasis on the fact that Qualcomm—a component
manufacturer—has been granted licenses to SEPs as a result of the grant-back
requirement in Qualcomm’s licenses with end-product manufacturers. See ER269-
270. But, as Qualcomm explained, it does not proactively seek licenses for its
cellular components; rather, it obtained cross-licenses or grant-backs from its
licensees to clear blocking positions. See Qualcomm SJ Opp., supra, at 10 n.3.
Whatever may be said of Qualcomm’s grant-back requirements, it is not evidence
that component manufacturers are routinely extended licenses, or evidence that
counters the general industry practice of licensing SEPs only at the end-product
level.10
10
After trial, the district court also noted that at some point in the past, “Qualcomm
previously licensed its SEPs to its rivals,” but later began to license only end-user
-22-
The District Court’s Interpretation of the TIA and ATIS IPR

Policies Fails to Maintain their Required Consistency with
Other IPR and Patent Policies
ATIS and TIA are the North American regional partners of the 3GPP and
3GPP2 global collaborative partnerships. The IPR policies of regional partner
organizations such as ATIS and TIA are required to be consistent with those of the
other regional partners of 3GPP and 3GPP2. See ER883, ER1025-1026. Rather
than comporting with the required consistency, the opinion below creates a
contradiction between the ATIS and TIA policies and those of other partner SDOs,
such as European Telecommunications Standards Institute (“ETSI”). For example,
the Eastern District of Texas recently held that the ETSI IPR policy does not “impose
a requirement that every FRAND license must be based on the SSPPU” or “smallest
salable patent practicing unit,” i.e., a component. HTC Corp. v. Telefonaktiebolaget
LM Ericsson, 2019 WL 126980, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2019). To support its
conclusion, the HTC court noted that “the prevailing industry standard or approach
has been to base FRAND licenses on the end-user device and not on the SSPPU.”
Id. (citing sources).
device manufacturers because that was “humongously more lucrative.” ER125-126.

But, of course, the fact that one company for some unspecified duration in the past
offered licenses to component manufacturers does not identify what the “general
practice” was at the time SEP holders contracted pursuant to the relevant TIA and
ATIS IPR policies. Crocker, 139 Cal. at 582.
-23-
Similarly, the American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) is the body
that accredits American SDOs such as ATIS and TIA. ATIS and TIA have kept
their IPR policies consistent with ANSI’s own patent policy: ATIS adopted ANSI’s
patent policy word-for-word, while the wording of the TIA IPR policy is
functionally equivalent. Compare ER899, with ER1031, ER1038-1039. In a recent
decision, the ANSI Executive Standards Council Appeals Panel rejected the
contention “that ANSI’s Patent Policy requires licensing at the component level.”
ER908 (emphasis omitted). Rather, the panel left “it to negotiations between patent
holders and implementers to decide what licensing terms are appropriate in
particular standards.” Id.
The district court held that this evidence was not relevant because—in its
view—the interpretation of the ETSI IPR policy and ANSI patent policy were not
related to the “circumstances surrounding the making of the [TIA and ATIS IPR
policies].” ER261 (quoting Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage &
Rigging Co., 69 Cal. 2d 33, 40 (1968)). This is incorrect. Far from being unrelated,
the link between the proper interpretations of the ETSI IPR policy and ANSI
Essential Requirements, and the TIA and ATIS IPR policies, is direct. For ETSI, its
IPR policy must be consistent with the TIA and ATIS IPR policies per 3GPP and
3GPP2 requirements. Likewise, to be accredited by ANSI, TIA and ATIS must have
an IPR policy that aligns with the ANSI Essential Requirements. Thus, in both
-24-
instances, the ATIS and TIA IPR policies would have been determined with the
background of other policies that had no requirement to license at the component
level, and the district court’s disregarding of this important context was error.
The District Court’s Ruling Misapplied Appellate Precedent

The Microsoft and Ericsson Decisions Are Not Relevant
The district court relied heavily on dicta from this Court’s decisions in
Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 696 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Microsoft II”) and
Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 795 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Microsoft III”),
which addressed the determination of a FRAND rate for SEPs essential to
International Telecommunications Union (“ITU”) video coding standards.
The district court cited these decisions for the proposition that an “SEP holder
that commits to license its SEPs on FRAND terms must license those SEPs to all
applicants,” including chip makers which were not in any way an issue in the two
Microsoft decisions. ER266. In support of its determination, the district court cited
this Court’s language that (i) the ITU IPR policy required SEP holders to license “all
comers,” ER265 (quoting Microsoft II, 696 F.3d at 876) (emphasis by district court),
and (ii) that an “SEP holder cannot refuse a license to a manufacturer who commits
to paying the FRAND rate,” id. (quoting Microsoft III, 795 F.3d at 1031) (emphasis
by district court).
-25-
The Microsoft cases, however, concerned a royalty dispute over end-user
devices. See Microsoft II, 696 F.3d at 879 (allegedly infringing products were “the
Microsoft Xbox gaming system and certain Microsoft Windows software”). There
was no dispute about Microsoft’s right—as an end-product manufacturer—to
receive a FRAND license. See id. at 884. This Court’s references to “all comers”
and refusals to license applied to the issue in that case: a methodology for
determining a FRAND royalty for an end-product, and not to whether FRAND
required licensing chip makers. In neither decision did this Court address the present
issue: who in the product manufacturing chain must be given a license under
FRAND SDO requirements.
The district court also misread the Federal Circuit’s decision in Ericsson, Inc.
v. D-Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014). According to the district court,
“the Federal Circuit [in Ericsson] has . . . held that S[D]O IPR policies require SEP
holder to grant licenses ‘to an unrestricted number of applicants,’ and that such a
FRAND commitment prohibits the SEP holder from refusing to license its SEPs to
others who wish to use the invention.” ER266 (quoting Ericsson, 773 F.3d at 1230).
In the portion of the opinion cited by the district court, however, the Federal Circuit
merely comments (in dicta) on how many licenses must be given—i.e., an
“unrestricted number”—to those entitled to a license. Id. Nowhere did the Federal
Circuit address who must be given a license, because—like in the Microsoft
-26-
litigation—that question was not before the court. Indeed, the actual issue in
Ericsson was “appropriate [F]RAND royalty rates” to end-product manufacturers,
Ericsson, 773 F.3d at 1229, and not to whom FRAND licensing obligations are
owed.
Authority Not Cited by the District Court Rejects Component

Licensing Requirements
While inappropriately relying on inapposite cases, the district court failed to
address the Federal Circuit’s holding in Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Research
Organisation v. Cisco Sys., Inc. (“CSIRO”), 809 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In
CSIRO, the Federal Circuit addressed whether a reasonable royalty for infringement
of an SEP must begin with the value of the SEP to the smallest salable patent
practicing unit or “SSPPU.” While CSIRO did not explicitly address whether the
FRAND commitment required component or SSPPU licensing, the Federal Circuit
implicitly rejected the notion by holding that a rule that “would require all damage
models to begin with the smallest salable patent-practicing unit[] is untenable.” Id.
at 1303. 11 Indeed, the Federal Circuit specifically rejected Cisco’s argument that the
district court erred by not beginning its damage analysis for infringement of an SEP
with the “wireless chip.” Id. at 1301. The Federal Circuit instead concluded that it
11
A small percentage of the products accused of infringement in CSIRO were subject
to a FRAND commitment (to an SDO called the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers).
-27-
was appropriate to value “the asserted patent with reference to end product licensing
negotiations.” Id. at 1303; see also Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Sprint Spectrum,
L.P., 2019 WL 1877309, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2019) (“[N]ot all damages models
must begin with the SSPPU, as requiring every damages model to do so conflicts
with” CSIRO. (internal quotation marks omitted)).
If SEPs must be licensed to component manufacturers—as the district court
held—that would turn the very approach rejected as “untenable” by the Federal
Circuit into a requirement.
II. IF AFFIRMED, THE DISTRICT COURT’S RULING WOULD UPEND

LICENSING PRACTICES ACROSS NUMEROUS MARKETS AND
MANDATE INEFFICIENT LICENSING
The district court’s determination that Qualcomm’s commitments to ATIS
and TIA require SEP owners to grant licenses to all applicants is not only at odds
with the expectations of thousands of parties to existing FRAND licenses, but would
also force future SEP licensing into an unworkable system. Forcing SEP holders to
license component suppliers would interfere with historical precedents and
established practices, and produce significant inefficiencies and lack of transparency
regarding whether products in the stream of commerce are in fact licensed.
For example, mandating chip licensing causes difficulties and inefficiencies
in both the infringement and patent essentiality analysis. Patentees must naturally
determine which manufacturer/seller is actually using its patent before seeking a
-28-
license under its patents. In the case of standardized technologies and end products,
the process is relatively confined: if the patent is essential to a standard and the
standard is employed in a product, use (or infringement) may be proven. See Fujitsu
Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., 620 F.3d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
This calculus can be far more time consuming, expensive, and complex for
components. It requires answers to complex, fact-specific inquiries, including:
(i) what functions are actually carried out by a chip and do those functions meet all
patent claim limitation; and (ii) is it one component in an end product that practices
all elements of an asserted claim or more than one? By mandating component
licensing, the holding below would substantially increase the cost and decrease the
efficiency of licensing SEPs by forcing industry to abandon its established practices
that have avoided the necessity of addressing these complex and time consuming
issues if components were the licensed “product.”
In addition, licensing on a component basis also would require licensors to
keep track of what is licensed on a component-by-component basis. Under the
current practice, where end products are normally licensed, licensors typically track
which products are licensed by following end products and their manufactures. The
process is straightforward and comparatively efficient, as the identity of the
manufacturer and/or seller of end products is transparent through market reports,
other third party data, and use of visible brand names.
-29-
This is generally not the case with components or chips. Without proprietary
information, it would be substantially more difficult to determine which components
are used in which product and their source. Even with such knowledge, which
components are licensed and which are not may not readily be apparent. End-
product manufacturers may use different vendors for the same or similar
components, making it possible and even likely (if components are licensed) that
some of the same products may be licensed while others are not. It may be difficult
and costly to determine which end products use which vendor components.
In sum, the efficiency of end product licensing—a primary reason SEPs
typically are licensed at that level—would be undone by the holding below, adding
costs, inefficiencies and complexities to licensing.
-30-
CONCLUSION
Dolby respectfully submits that for the reasons explained above—the
language of FRAND commitments given by Qualcomm, industry practice,
precedent, and the practicalities of licensing—there is no contractual FRAND
obligation to license SEPs at the component level based upon assurances made in
accordance with the TIA and ATIS IPR Policies. The district court’s summary
judgment determination to the contrary should be reversed.
August 30, 2019 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Garrard R. Beeney

Garrard R. Beeney
Akash M. Toprani
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
(212) 558-4000

-31-
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32 and Circuit Rule 32-3,
counsel for Amicus Curiae Dolby Laboratories, Inc. hereby certifies that this brief is
proportionally spaced, has a typeface of 14 points or more, and contains 6759 words.
August 30, 2019 /s/ Garrard R. Beeney

Garrard R. Beeney
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 30th day of August, 2019, I electronically filed
the foregoing Brief of Amicus Curiae with the Clerk of the Court for the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate ECF system.
Counsel for the parties are registered ECF users.
August 30, 2019 /s/ Garrard R. Beeney

Garrard R. Beeney

19-08-30 Dolby Labs Acb

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

19-08-30 Dolby Labs Acb

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

19-08-30 Dolby Labs Acb

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 19-16122, 08/30/2019, ID: 11416770, DktEntry: 84, Page 1 of 39

United States Court of Appeals

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, A Delaware corporation,

NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY,

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE DOLBY LABORATORIES, INC.

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock.

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ..........................................................i

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE .......................................................................... 1

The Plain Language of the Relevant FRAND Contracts is

Extrinsic Evidence Confirms that FRAND Does Not

Worldwide Industry Practice Reflects No Component

The District Court Disregarded Relevant Evidence of

The District Court’s Interpretation of the TIA and

The District Court’s Ruling Misapplied Appellate Precedent ............ 25

The Microsoft and Ericsson Decisions Are Not

Authority Not Cited by the District Court Rejects

II. If Affirmed, the District Court’s Ruling Would Upend Licensing

California Lettuce Growers, Inc. v. Union Sugar Co.,

Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Research Organisation v. Cisco

Crocker-Woolworth Nat. Bank v. Nevada Bank,

Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,

HTC Corp. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson,

Koninklijke Philips NV v. Asustek Computer Inc., [2016] EWHC 2220

Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc.,

Midwest Television, Inc. v. Scott, Lancaster, Mills & Atha, Inc.,

Japan Patent Office, Guide to Licensing Negotiations Involving

U.S. Dep’t of Justice and Fed. Trade Comm’n, Antitrust Enforcement

Avanci, “FAQ,” http://avanci.com/faq/ ...................................................................17

Hogan Lovells, “Guangdong Court Issues new Guidance for Standard

HEVC Advance, “HEVC Advance Program Overview 10,”

Via Group, “IEEE 802.11 standard,” http://www.via-

MPEG LA, “DisplayPort FAQ,”

One-Blue, “One-Blue License Program,” https://www.one-

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE 1

Founded in 1965 and headquartered in California, Dolby Laboratories, Inc.

products in numerous technologies, including audio and video compression and

analog noise reduction, to path-breaking digital surround sound in cinemas, to

has continued to bring value to consumers by introducing multiple generations of

new fundamental technologies that enable superior consumer experiences in content

means to bring its innovations into the hands of consumers.

development organizations (“SDOs”), and allowed others access to that technology

participation in SDOs, these organizations have standardized technologies which

participants to bring new and innovative products to consumers.

SDOs as the best or superior technological solution to the challenges of innovation,

standards, known as standard essential patents (“SEPs”).

Qualcomm’s assurances pursuant to the intellectual property rights (“IPR”) policies

of two SDOs, the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (“ATIS”)

and the Telecommunications Industry Association (“TIA”), require Qualcomm to

license its SEPs to chipset manufacturers. The district court’s construction of

Qualcomm’s assurances misconstrues the contractual language at issue and thereby

structure their licensing arrangements to bring new technologies and products to

terms (“FRAND”), to further enable widespread adoption of the SDO standards in

consumer products. These assurances, however, do not prescribe to whom in the

of new technologies to consumers, but also has encouraged innovators’ participation

in SDOs’ development of superior technologies by giving them flexibility within the

general FRAND license requirements they agree to. By interpreting Qualcomm’s

assurances as requiring Qualcomm to license SEPs to chip manufacturers, the