April 8, 2013 NPE litigation in Japan Activities and impact of FRAND commitments Eiichiro Kubota, Hogan Lovells Tokyo

Litigations involving NPEs NTT Docomo v. ADC Technologies (October 1, 2004 Tokyo District Court) NEC v. ADC Technologies (October 1, 2004 Tokyo District Court) Chi Mei v. SEL (October 31, 2007 IP High Court) ADC Technologies v. Softbank Mobile (March 30, 2010 IP High Court) IPCom v. eAccess (August 30, 2011 Tokyo District Court) 2

Litigations involving NPEs IPCom v. eAccess (May 31, 2012 Tokyo District Court) ADC Technologies v. Sony (November 13, 2012 Tokyo District Court) High Point v. KDDI (January 17, 2013 IP High Court) 3

Pending cases IPCom v. eAccess NTT Docomo v. IPCom High Point v. KDDI Adaptix (Acacia) v. Huawei 4

ADC Technologies Company in Nagoya Founded by Mr. Adachi who is a Benrishi 331 patents/applications in the IPDL database Enforced patents on server systems and mobile handsets 5

SEL (Semiconductor Energy Laboratory) Company in Atsugi Led by Mr. Shunpei Yamazaki patents/applications in the IPDL database Taken DR action by Chi Mei on display patent 6

IPCom German NPE Acquired patent portfolio of mobile phone technology from Bosch Run by Mr. Frohwitter, patent attorney who was founder of the Bardehle firm and was agent to Bosch 56 patents/applications in the IPDL database 7

High Point sarl Luxembourg corporation Acquired patent originally filed by AT&T Litigation pending in US, Netherlands, UK and Germany 8

Acacia One of the largest US NPEs Acquired Adaptix and its patent portfolio on 4G technology 16 patents/applications in the name of Adaptix in the IPDL database 9

FRAND defense in Japan The case of Apple v. Samsung is the leading case Decision of February 28, 2013 by the Tokyo District Court (Otaka Court) DR action by Apple claiming its iPhones and iPads do not infringe Samsung's JP "Method and apparatus for transmitting and receiving packet data" Court found some of the goods to be in the technical scope of the invention but denied Samsung's rights to recover damages 10

FRAND defense in Japan Court said that Samsung's attempt to recover damages from Apple would be an "abuse of right" under the following circumstances; –The original application was filed in Korea on May 4, 2005 –Samsung participated in the working group of the 3GPP and made a proposal to introduce the invented technology in May 2005 –Samsung declared on August 7, 2007 that the patent in question is essential to the UMTS (3GPP) standard and that it will license the patent under FRAND terms –Samsung filed for preliminary injunction against Apple on April 21, 2011 and the case is still pending 11

FRAND defense in Japan –Samsung made a offer of a license under the patent specifying royalty rate on July 25, 2011 but did not show why they came up with such royalty rate –Apple argued in its letter of August 18, 2011 that Samsung's royalty rate could not exceed 0.275% and asked Samsung to disclose royalty rates with other licensees –Samsung requested Apple to give them a counter-offer on January 31, 2012 but again did not give any reasons why they came to the proposed royalty rate –Apple made a counter-offer specifying royalty rate in its letter of March 4,

FRAND defense in Japan –Samsung replied on April 18, 2012 saying that the proposed royalty rate by Apple is too low and is not a proposal for a license under FRAND terms –Apple made an offer on September 7, 2012 of a cross- license between Apple and Samsung on all smart phones and tablets specifying royalties 13

FRAND defense in Japan The Court, saying that Apple and Samsung have obligations to negotiate a license in good faith, concluded that Samsung's attempt to recover damages will be an abuse of right under current circumstances because; –Samsung did not show the reasons for the proposed royalty rate –Samsung did not disclose license agreements with other licensees –Samsung did not make a counter-offer against license terms proposed by Apple 14

FRAND defense in Japan –Samsung is still asking for preliminary injunction against Apple's products –Samsung disclosed its patent after 2 years from when the invented technology was adopted in the 3GPP standard 15

Hogan Lovells has offices in: Alicante Amsterdam Baltimore Beijing Berlin Brussels Budapest* Caracas Colorado Springs Denver Dubai Dusseldorf Frankfurt Hamburg Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City Hong Kong Houston Jakarta* Jeddah* London Los Angeles Madrid Miami Milan Moscow Munich New York Northern Virginia Paris Philadelphia Prague Riyadh* Rome San Francisco Shanghai Silicon Valley Singapore Tokyo Ulaanbaatar Warsaw Washington DC Zagreb* "Hogan Lovells" or the "firm" is an international legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP and their affiliated businesses. The word "partner" is used to describe a partner or member of Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP or any of their affiliated entities or any employee or consultant with equivalent standing. Certain individuals, who are designated as partners, but who are not members of Hogan Lovells International LLP, do not hold qualifications equivalent to members. For more information about Hogan Lovells, the partners and their qualifications, see Where case studies are included, results achieved do not guarantee similar outcomes for other clients. Attorney Advertising. © Hogan Lovells All rights reserved. *Associated offices