Apple Inc.(NASDAQ:AAPL) has offered Samsung a cross-licensing deal

Apple Inc.(NASDAQ:AAPL) had offered Samsung a cross-licensing deal for 3G/UMTS technologies, prior to the trial in a California court, AppleInsider reported on Thursday referring to a court filing.

According to AppleInsider a letter from Apple's property licensing director Boris Teksler to his counterpart at Samsung, Seongwoo Kim, described a reciprocal deal in which each company would pay royalty rates for the other's 3G/UMTS wireless patents under the same FRAND principles. The letter, which was included in a flurry of post-trial filings, was dated April 30, 2012, just three months before the Apple v. Samsung jury trial began.

The licensing would be done under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory or FRAND terms, Apple had proposed. Samsung had asked for a 2.4 percent royalty payment for the licensing deal.

At the time of the trial Apple had said that the royalty rates asked for by Samsung ha bee too high.

The latter also pointed that the Korean company had not given evidence of any company that paid a 2.4 percent for a similar licensing deal.

"Apple is willing to license its declared-essential UMTS patents to Samsung on license terms that rely on the price of baseband chips as the FRAND royalty base, and a rate that reflects Apple’s share of the total declared UMTS-essential patents (and all patents required for standards for which UMTS is backward-compatible, such as GSM)--provided that Samsung reciprocally agrees to this same, common royalty base, and same methodological approach to royalty rate, in licensing its declared-essential patents to Apple.

Apple estimates that this approach, which implements the true meaning of and requirements imposed by FRAND, results in a $.33 (thirty-three cents) per unit royalty for the Apple patents. Apple will today license its declared-essential UMTS patents to Samsung at that rate, provided Samsung reciprocally agrees to the FRAND principles that result in that rate. This rate would be applied to all Samsung units that Apple has not otherwise licensed. Samsung would likewise need to agree that it would only charge royalties on Apple units that Samsung has not otherwise licensed."