The difference is, unlike Q, MEN did net sell ICs which already embodied their IPs. Thus they licensed use of their IP on the device. Whether the royalty is fixed per device or calculated based on the construed value of the device is secondary to the method of license. TXN, by contrast, sold gsm modems, did they charge royalty on the device? Q is not MEN. Q is TXN.
This gets back to the point of my original post: Apple's "design" patent win. Forget for the moment that the patent claims appear ludicrously obvious, not to mention likely prior art as noted by engineer, design patents as such also can only be imputed to the entire device, same as MEN's case you noted. Q is different. Q is like TXN, Intel, ARM, MSFT. Q sells a set of ICs which embodies their SEP patents. The std practice afaik would have been to roll the patent royalty into those ICs. Of course, for manufacturers of similar radio ICs (Intel, Mediatek, Spreadtrum, Huawei etc.) then, yes, Q must license their use of its IP in those ICs. Device manufacturers, whether edge (handsets) or core (infra) pay for those SEPs when they pay for those ICs. This, I submit, is the std industry practice. Are you aware of any other company which sells ICs but licenses its IP separately on the end-user device, not their ICs?
|
