EDTX: Bad Faith FRAND Negotiations Warrant Suspension but Not Revocation of Parties’ Obligations Under French Law

February 1, 2024

Reading Time : 4 min

The Eastern District of Texas recently addressed two significant issues related to fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) negotiations under French law; namely, whether: (1) an implementer is entitled to damages resulting from a standard essential patent (SEP) holder’s bad faith; and (2) an SEP holder can unilaterally discharge its FRAND obligations in view of an implementer’s bad faith.

This case involves G+ Communications, a 5G SEP holder and Samsung Electronics, a 5G standard implementer. The European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) and the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)both standards setting organizations (SSOs)developed the 5G standard. ETSI’s Intellectual Property Rights Policy (IPR Policy) mandates that participants in the ETSI SSO declare all SEPs and irrevocably commit to negotiate in good faith and license the SEPs on FRAND terms. Furthermore, the IPR Policy’s “construction, validity, and performance” and participants’ declarations are “governed by the laws of France.”

Early in the proceedings, Samsung filed a motion to dismiss certain aspects of G+ Communications’ complaint. The court deferred issues regarding the scope of the French law, stating they were “not appropriately decided at this stage” and suggested resolution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1, which states:

A party who intends to raise an issue about a foreign country’s law must give notice by a pleading or other writing. In determining foreign law, the court may consider any relevant material or source, including testimony, whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The court’s determination must be treated as a ruling on a question of law.

Samsung argued that G+ Communications (and its predecessor-in-interest) had violated FRAND obligations, including the duty to negotiate in good faith.1 Based on these allegations, Samsung sought damages to cover all losses caused by the bad faith, including litigation costs.

Samsung filed a Rule 44.1 motion arguing that French law permitted such damages. The court, referencing the testimony from G+ Communications’ own French law expert, largely sided with Samsung. It determined that G+ Communications had an obligation to negotiate in good faith and would be responsible for damages due to a breach of this duty. However, the court also found that French law required a reciprocal duty and potential liability for failure of that duty. Specifically, the court determined:

In a negotiation for a license to a patent where the patent has been contributed to an adopted standard (which patent is known as a standard essential patent), if either negotiating party (being either the patent holder or the implementer of the adopted standard) fails to negotiate in good faith and thereby prevents a license from being granted on fair reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, then the party who fails to act in good faith is liable to the other party for any reasonable damages which arise from such breach, including but not limited to attorney’s fees and the cost of litigation.

The court also determined that, in this instance, G+ Communications’ FRAND obligations were irrevocable, as Samsung argued, but noted that under French law, “the obligation to negotiate towards a FRAND license in good faith may be temporarily suspended.” The court reasoned that suspending negotiation obligations is “both practical and logical” when a counterparty is acting in bad faith:

As a matter of practice, a contract for a license to an SEP on FRAND terms cannot be reached if one party is acting in bad faith. Bad faith negotiations are fundamentally incompatible with the notion of reaching a contract that is [FRAND]. Since, practically speaking, such a contract cannot be consummated in the presence of bad faith, going forward with negotiations to reach that contract is impossible, as a matter of practicality.

The court further reasoned this approach addresses both patent owner “hold up” and implementer “hold out” scenarios and ultimately determined French law requires:

Where a patent is contributed to an adopted standard established by a standard setting organization, such contribution contractually burdens the patent to thereafter be licensed on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms. This is known as the FRAND obligation. This obligation is irrevocable, and thereafter runs with the patent. However, if in negotiating for a license to a patent burdened by a FRAND obligation either the patent holder or the implementer of the adopted standard fails to act in good faith and thereby prevents a license from being granted, the other party’s obligation to continue negotiations is suspended. This does not remove the burden of the FRAND obligation from the patent, but avoids obliging a party acting in good faith to continue negotiating with a party who fails to do so. If the bad faith actor ceases its bad faith and begins acting in good faith, the good faith negotiations must also resume.

Practice Tips: Early in a proceeding, litigants involved in SEP disputes need to identify if foreign law governs and, if the governing law is in dispute, potentially address the issue through Rule 44.1 motion practice with supporting foreign expert testimony. Litigants should also recognize the courts will generally consider the duties and conduct of both parties when assessing allegations of bad faith in SEP negotiations.

G+ Communications, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. LTD., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00078-JRG (EDTX Jan. 24, 2024) (J. Gilstrap).


1 The original patent owner assigned the asserted SEPs to G+ Communications. As a participant in the ETSI SSO, the original owner declared each of the SEPs essential to the 5G Standard. In previous rulings, the court found that the original patent owner’s FRAND obligations, pertaining to the SEPs, ran with the SEPs, but its alleged bad faith did not.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2025

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the “entire market value rule.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 1, 2025

In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry applied when evaluating the claims of a patent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 26, 2025

The Northern District of Ohio denied a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce test results referenced in its initial disclosures and complaint. The court found that because the “test results are not facts but rather are opinions,” the information was protected as work product. Furthermore, because that testing would not be used as evidence in the litigation, the defendant was not prejudiced.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.