9th Cir.;
14-35393
The court of appeals affirmed a district court judgment. The court held that the district court acted within its legal authority and properly applied the hypothetical agreement approach when it determined the reasonable and nondiscriminatory rate, as well as a range of rates, for a party’s standard-essential patents. The court held further that substantial evidence supported a jury’s damages verdict for the company’s breach of its contractual good faith and fair dealing obligations to license its standard-essential patents according to reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates.
