Month: April 2014

Categories
Commercialization Conferences High Tech Industry Innovation Intellectual Property Theory Law and Economics Legislation Patent Law Patent Licensing Patent Litigation Patent Theory Software Patent Uncategorized

The Unintended Consequences of Patent "Reform"

By Steven Tjoe

Much of today’s patent policy debate focuses on the dynamics of patent litigation.  Sensational anecdotes of abusive demand letters, litigants strategically exploiting bad patents, and tales of so-called “patent trolls” (reinforced by now debunked empirical claims) have captured the public’s imagination and spurred Congress to rush to revise the patent system.  Unfortunately, the fervor to address perceived patent litigation abuses often overlooks the substantial unintended consequences of recent and proposed legislation.

CPIP and WARF’s recent conference, From Lab to Market: How Intellectual Property Secures the Benefits of R&D, featured a panel designed to fill this void in the conversation.  Instead of myopically focusing on trolls and litigation abuse, the panelists, Eb Bright, Robert Sterne, and Carl Gulbrandsen, brought the discussion back to reality and addressed the greater context of how recent and proposed changes to patent law impact our innovation ecosystem at large.

First, an understanding of how ideas are developed and brought to market is crucial to evaluating the ramifications of patent legislation.  Eb Bright, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of ExploraMed, illustrated this often-overlooked process from the perspective of the medical device industry.  In the world of medical device development, the financial risks of bringing an idea to market are very high.  The cost from conception to market can range from approximately $75 million for low-risk devices to approximately $135 million for high-risk devices.  Additionally, it takes 8-10 years on average to begin seeing a return on investment.

The result is that innovators in the medical device space – mostly small start-up companies – must secure significant financing from venture capitalists and other investors to keep their companies alive during this lengthy process.  Strong patents are fundamental to securing this financing.  They are essential to keeping competitors from free-riding on a company’s work and poaching its investors’ returns.  Investors are loathe to finance a start-up without confidence that the company can protect its intellectual property (which often accounts for a significant portion of the company’s value) from free-riders.  In this fragile innovation ecosystem, legislation that weakens patents and makes it harder for small companies to enforce their patent rights could have devastating consequences on start-ups’ ability to secure essential financing.

Carl Gulbrandsen, Managing Director of WARF, discussed proposed patent legislation from the perspective of a large university technology transfer office.  As the University of Wisconsin’s licensing arm, WARF licenses university patents and returns approximately $80 million a year to the university to support further research.  This symbiotic relationship fuels research and also adds significant value to the university’s inventions.  By marketing and licensing inventions to companies (often small start-ups) that take on the substantial effort of turning those inventions into actual products, WARF plays a crucial role in moving innovation from the lab to the marketplace.  Importantly, strong patent rights lie at the center of this virtuous cycle.

Mr. Gulbrandsen observed that proposed legislation would disrupt this process by making it substantially more difficult for universities to enforce their patents, and therefore substantially more difficult for universities to license and commercialize their inventions.  While established organizations like WARF may be able to handle the increased costs and risks, at the margin fewer universities would be able to license their intellectual property.  The result is that fewer inventions would move from lab to market, and universities would have less revenue to fuel future research.

It is against this backdrop that efforts to revise our patent system occur.  Overbroad “patent abuse” legislation that fails to appreciate the economic realities of our innovation ecosystem can lead to significant unintended consequences.  Robert Sterne, Director of Sterne Kessler, illustrated some unintended consequences from the last major patent “reform” legislation, the America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA).  In particular, Mr. Sterne addressed issues arising from the Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) and Covered Business Method Patent Review (“CBM”) procedures implemented under the AIA.

Mr. Sterne spoke about trial practice before the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), noting that Rule 42.1(b) establishes that the rules should “be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.”  While the resulting procedures are certainly speedy (cases proceed through the USPTO and through appeal at the Federal Circuit within 2 years) and are cheaper than District Court proceedings, the procedures are far from just, and have proved particularly unforgiving for patent owners as a result of vast departures from well-established rules and procedures utilized by the courts.

Mr. Sterne explained how the new IPR procedures include more limited claim construction rules, less stringent burdens of proof to invalidate a patent, and less opportunity to adequately prove non-obviousness.  Of particular concern to patent owners is the inability to show non-obviousness.  In District Court, patent owners generally show non-obviousness by telling the story of the invention.  Inventors recount the state of the technology prior to their invention and the contributions their invention made.  By contrast, PTAB’s narrow time limitations and constraints on responses filed strip patent owners of the ability to do the same in IPR proceedings.

Consequently, the trial outcomes under the new system have yielded startlingly negative results for patent holders.  As of March 7, 2014, the PTAB had issued 19 Final Written Decisions on the merits for IPRs and CBMs.  In all but three of these proceedings, the Board cancelled all claims for which trial was instituted.  In total, 95.2% of all claims for which trial was instituted were cancelled and 82.9% of all claims that were initially challenged by the petitioner were cancelled.

Furthermore, IPR proceedings are always available and may stand alone or exist as part of a litigation strategy.  A patent owner does not have to take any action before being challenged.   New business entities, such as subscription services designed to work around the estoppel provisions, are already being formed to capitalize on the lopsided nature of the process.  It’s important to note that the constant threat of IPR and the risks and costs associated with it are not only detrimental to patent owners, they also affect our entire innovation ecosystem.

The central takeaway from the panel was this:  As we consider patent legislation ostensibly designed to curb abusive litigation, it is crucial to consider the potential unintended consequences of weakening patent rights across the board.  We must recognize the economic realities of our innovation ecosystem, and we must narrowly tailor any solutions to address the limited instances of abuse without harming start-ups, universities, and all the other patent owners that fuel our innovation economy.

Categories
Antitrust Commercialization Damages DOJ Economic Study FTC High Tech Industry Innovation International Law Law and Economics Patent Law Patent Licensing Patent Litigation Reasonable Royalty Remedies Software Patent Uncategorized

An Insightful Analysis of “Fair and Reasonable” in the Determination of FRAND Terms

By Steven Tjoe

In his forthcoming George Mason University Law Review article entitled “The Meaning of ‘Fair and Reasonable’ in the Context of Third-Party Determination of FRAND Terms,” Professor Damien Geradin explores the delicate balance of interests protected by the current system of arm’s length negotiations in the standard-setting process, and the detrimental effect disrupting this balance would have on standards-related technologies and our innovation economy.

Fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) commitments are the subject of frequent criticism in both legal and economic literature.  Many policymakers, practitioners, and academics have argued that the inherent ambiguity in establishing “fair and reasonable” terms creates inefficiencies and perverse incentives for standard-essential patent (“SEP”) holders to exercise ex post opportunism.  Based on this belief, some now argue that the standard-setting organization (“SSO”) contracting process is broken and requires additional legal and regulatory mechanisms to afford standard implementers greater protection.

Professor Geradin’s article brings some much-needed balance to this debate.  By highlighting the economic principles and the carefully negotiated terms underlying current SSO contracting processes, Geradin exposes the pitfalls of many of the reforms suggested.  Geradin’s analysis elucidates the SSO contracting process itself through dissection of the intensive discussions and negotiations giving rise to the prominent ETSI Intellectual Property Rights (“IPR”) policy, a policy that played a fundamental standardization role in the wireless communication field.  The ETSI IPR policy shows that its members understood the notions of “fairness and reasonable” to define a fair balance between the interests of SEP holders and standard implementers – securing the availability of the standards while simultaneously ensuring that SEP holders are “adequately and fairly rewarded for the use of their [intellectual property rights].”

Professor Geradin addresses two potential forms of ex post opportunism – “hold-up” and “royalty stacking” – and observes that though both could occur in theory, there is little evidence to suggest that they occur in real-world patent licensing.  Regarding the hold-up conjecture, Geradin observes that the relative absence of hold-up is consistent with the economics of contracting: parties who repeatedly deal with each other will limit opportunism to protect their reputation.  Similarly, royalty stacking is a rare occurrence in high-technology, where cross-licensing is common and greatly diminishes the risk of royalty-stacking.  Given the absence of empirical evidence demonstrating opportunistic behavior by SEP holders, Geradin cautions against implementing reforms that systematically weaken the bargaining power of SEP holders, as proposed reforms may themselves trigger reciprocal opportunistic behavior – such as “reverse hold-up” – by standard implementers.

In the context of FRAND licensing, Geradin observes that for rewards to be adequate and fair, they must not only compensate SEP holders for their risky R&D investments (including investments in prior failed projects), they must also give SEP holders sufficient incentive to keep investing in the development of standardized technologies.  The negative consequences of systematically offering below-FRAND terms to SEP holders are two-fold.  First, as Geradin eloquently observes, “[i]t is a basic law of finance that capital flows where the best opportunities arise,” and developers of technologies in standardized sectors unduly constrained by low returns may seek opportunities outside the standardized sectors.  Second, without adequate returns, major technological contributors may decide to no longer participate in SSOs in order to avoid being bound by FRAND commitments.  As a result, standards would likely fail to incorporate the best technology available.

Accordingly, Geradin is skeptical of many of the policy measures suggested to provide additional protections to potential licensees and consumers of standardized technologies.  One such measure is the “ex ante incremental value method,” where the rate that would have resulted from ex ante competition between the technology in question and alternative technological solutions serves as a benchmark to whether a royalty is fair and reasonable.  As Geradin observes:

While the pricing of SEPs at incremental value may facilitate the dissemination of the standard in the short-term, the licensing fee resulting from the incremental value of the SEP holder’s technology would certainly not be enough to properly compensate the investment costs and risks [a] company incurred in developing its superior technology, as well as to incentivize it to make investment in new technologies.

With respect to this method, Geradin concludes that the “ex ante incremental rule is thus not so much an instrument to prevent the theoretical risks of hold-up, but a tool to lower royalty rates to the benefit of standard implementers.”  As such, the ex ante incremental value rule could potentially have a devastating impact on innovation incentives and standards.

Geradin next explores the multi-factor test contained in Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp. (“Georgia-Pacific”).  In Georgia-Pacific, a federal district court established a framework by which fifteen factors offering a variety of benchmarks are used to compute reasonable royalty damages by contemplating a “hypothetical negotiation” between a “willing licensor” and “willing licensee” at the time the infringement began.  Geradin observes:

A key strength of the Georgia-Pacific framework is that it is sufficiently flexible to establish a balance between the dual objective of SSO’s IPR policies … which are both to ensure standard dissemination and adequate remuneration of the SEP holder.  In other words, unlike abstract mathematical methods, which … can be easily tipped in favor of the prospective licensee (or the prospective licensor), the multi-factor test at the core of the Georgia-Pacific framework reduces the risk of bias if it is properly carried out.

As such, the Georgia-Pacific framework can better reflect the reality of contract negotiations, where the parties look to a variety of factors, and not some magic formula, to come to mutually acceptable licensing terms.

In the context of FRAND litigation, however, Geradin cautions against potential pitfalls of applying the Georgia-Pacific framework.  At the outset, Geradin notes that licensing agreements are often “highly relationship-specific and thus agreements will be hard to compare.”  Geradin discusses the practice of comparing the rate offered ex post standardization by SEP holders with the rate offered for the same patents ex ante standardization.  Though many are inclined to treat the ex ante rate as a “safe harbor” against any claim of opportunism, Geradin finds that there is little reason why licensors should be prohibited from charging higher rates ex post than ex ante.  Not only may ex post contracts be more efficient in the way they incorporate a clearer understanding of the technology and the market, but also forcing SEP holders to charge similar ex ante and ex post rates deprives SEP holders of giving preferential terms to early adopters of their technology.

Professor Geradin then explores whether patent pools offer a useful benchmark to determine FRAND license terms.  Due to the difficulties of forming pools and the different business models of the relevant patent holders, many standardized sectors simply do not have sizeable patent pools covering their standards.  Even where sizeable patent pools exist, Geradin observes that the pools often will not serve as the right benchmark for FRAND rate determination.  In many standardized sectors, such as in wireless communications, patent pools tend to be used by SEP holders to avoid transactions costs, rather than to obtain FRAND compensation.  Moreover, many patent pools base their method of remuneration on the number of a firm’s patents compared to the size of the pool rather than the relative strength of the patents themselves.  Where numerical proportionality serves as the metric of FRAND compensation, such as in the recent In re Innovatio IP Ventures LLC case, SEP holders have the incentive to inflate the number of patents they contribute to the pool.  Thus, using patent pools as a benchmark runs the risk of setting rates that are well below FRAND.

The potential welfare-reducing consequences of limiting the flexibility of the SSO negotiation process has been well documented in recent legal and economic literature.  As Professor Geradin observes, solutions to perceived FRAND inadequacies that aim to weaken the bargaining position of SEP holders often overreach, in effect triggering the “wholesale devaluation of patents.”  Instead, FRAND determinations should consider the “dynamic nature of standardization” and should be determined by balancing the need to (1) make standards available and, (2) fairly compensate SEP holders.  This delicate balance of interests is necessary to protect the future of standardization.