Account

Sign in to access your account and subscription

Federal Circuit Tackles RAND Royalty Rates

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a case of first impression, ruled that when the patent at issue is a standard essential patent (SEP) and its owner is subject to an obligation to license that patent on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms, the jury instructions must discuss the specific obligations of that patentee and not RAND commitments in general.

19 minute read December 31, 2014 at 11:00 PM
By
Matthew Siegal and Adam Sapper
Federal Circuit Tackles RAND Royalty Rates

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, on Dec. 4, 2014 in a case of first impression, ruled that when the patent at issue is a standard essential patent (SEP) and its owner is subject to an obligation to license that patent on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms, the jury instructions must discuss the specific obligations of that patentee and not RAND commitments in general.

This premium content is locked for The Intellectual Property Strategist subscribers only

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN The Intellectual Property Strategist

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

Already have an account? Sign In Now

For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Continue Reading

Most firms are aiming their newest tools at the work they already do — pouring their most powerful technology into running the same tasks a little faster. But when everyone automates the same tasks at once, no one pulls ahead. That reaches the future a little faster while leaving a firm’s largest opportunity untouched — and that opportunity isn’t doing more of the existing work, but transforming how the high-value work gets done.

June 01, 2026

Artificial intelligence is rapidly embedding itself into legal workflows, but much of the conversation treats all use cases as if they carry the same level of risk, even if they do not. The more useful question is not whether AI works, but where it can be safely applied and where it cannot.

June 01, 2026