Federal Court Rejects Roku’s Patent Lawsuit Against Access Advance
▼ Summary
– A US federal court dismissed Roku’s lawsuit seeking to set a global FRAND royalty rate for the HEVC Advance Patent Pool, citing lack of jurisdiction.
– The court ruled that determining a global rate would be advisory, which is prohibited under US law, as US patents are only a fraction of the portfolio.
– Roku’s lawsuit attempted to bypass ongoing European Unified Patent Court cases, raising similar issues already under review in Germany.
– The dismissal reinforces that US courts cannot unilaterally set global FRAND rates, emphasizing territorial patent rights and good-faith negotiations.
– The decision aligns with other international rulings, like Tesla’s UK case, discouraging courts from setting worldwide rates without party agreement.
A federal court has dismissed Roku’s lawsuit against Access Advance, rejecting the streaming giant’s attempt to have the court establish global royalty rates for video compression patents. The Massachusetts District Court ruled it lacked jurisdiction to determine worldwide licensing terms for the HEVC Advance Patent Pool, dealing a significant blow to Rookie’s legal strategy.
Judicial Boundaries Clarified in Patent Dispute
Judge Richard G. Stearns delivered a decisive opinion, stating US courts cannot unilaterally set fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) rates for international patent portfolios. The court emphasized that American patents represent just a fraction of the global HEVC Advance pool, which includes over 27,500 patents across 117 countries. This ruling prevents potential conflicts with ongoing European litigation where similar issues are being addressed.
Roku had filed suit in December 2024 against Access Advance and other licensors, seeking judicial intervention in licensing negotiations. The company’s legal maneuver attempted to bypass proceedings already underway in Germany’s Unified Patent Court. Legal experts note this dismissal reinforces the principle that patent disputes should be resolved through negotiation rather than forum shopping across multiple jurisdictions.
Industry-Wide Impact of the Ruling
The decision carries important implications for technology companies engaged in standards-essential patent licensing. By affirming the territorial nature of patent rights, the court has maintained stability in how multinational patent pools operate. This outcome discourages companies from using litigation as leverage to avoid good-faith licensing discussions and preserves the existing framework for cross-border patent negotiations.
Access Advance’s Chief Legal Officer John Kinton welcomed the ruling, stating it validates the complex realities of global patent administration. “The court recognized the impracticality of having a single jurisdiction dictate terms for patents held by dozens of owners across more than a hundred countries,” Kinton remarked.
The Massachusetts decision aligns with recent international precedents, including a UK case where Tesla unsuccessfully sought worldwide FRAND rates for the Avanci patent pool. These consistent rulings suggest a growing judicial consensus against unilateral determinations of global licensing terms without mutual agreement between parties.
About Video Compression Licensing
Access Advance administers major patent pools for cutting-edge video technologies, including the HEVC Advance and VVC Advance pools. Their licensing programs cover essential patents for H.265/HEVC and H.266/VVC standards, offering implementers streamlined access to critical video compression technologies. The company’s innovative Multi-Codec Bridging Agreement provides cost efficiencies for licensees adopting multiple codec standards.
(Source: Streaming Media)
