Tag: Federal Trade Commission

Categories
FTC ITC Patents

Philips and Thales’ Standard Essential Patent Fight at the Federal Circuit, District Court, and ITC

The following post comes from Jack Ring, a rising 2L at Scalia Law and a Research Assistant at C-IP2. Click here for a related post.

a gavel on a desk in front of booksI. INTRODUCTION

On July 13, 2022, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of Thales DIS AIS Deutschland GMBH’s (Thales) motion to enjoin Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Philips) from proceeding in a parallel investigation against Thales at the United States International Trade Commission (ITC).[1] This dispute, stemming from SEP licensing negotiations dating back to 2015, seemed poised to be a vehicle to set SEP policy. It offered an opportunity for the District Court and the Federal Circuit to prevent a party from seeking an exclusion order from the ITC when a court was asked to set FRAND rates. It further offered the ITC the opportunity to apply its public interest factors broadly to the same ends. However, all three courts that heard this dispute sidestepped the policy debate.

On the same day in 2020, Philips brought a district court case in Delaware[2] and an ITC investigation[3] against Thales asserting the same four essential patents. In response, Thales moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent Philips from proceeding at the ITC. Thales claimed inter alia that the ITC investigation was causing irreparable harm to its business by disrupting business and deterring customers. Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly, presiding in Delaware, denied Thales’ preliminary injunction, reasoning that Thales’ claims failed to illustrate irreparable harm.

While Thales’ motion sought to enjoin Philips, granting the preliminary injunction would have effectively stripped the ITC of its jurisdiction. This would have been at odds with the ITC’s statutory scheme. As Chief Judge Connolly acknowledged during his ruling on the motion, Congress authorized patentees to pursue ITC and district court proceedings on parallel tracks. Chief Judge Connolly noted the potential policy issues with granting SEP owners exclusion orders, but he reasoned that he was not the one who should make policy, instead deferring to Congress or a higher court.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed, ruling that Thales failed to present evidence of a likelihood of irreparable harm beyond conclusory customer concerns. The Federal Circuit’s opinion came just seven days after the ITC’s final determination finding no violation of Section 337 and multiple claims of the Asserted Patents invalid.

This appeal and the ITC investigation seemed poised to tackle those big policy issues Chief Judge Connolly declined to answer. However, the subsequent rulings avoided any policy decisions. The Federal Circuit’s narrow holding did not discuss any policy issues, solely focusing on the lack of irreparable harm. The ITC’s finding of no violation meant it needed not consider the statutory public interest factors. The Commission’s prior request for public interest statements request garnered a statement from Chair Lina Khan and Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which lobbied the ITC to deny relief to any Complainants asserting patents that are subject to FRAND-setting litigation in other forums.

II. DISTRICT COURT ACTION

Philips brought two district court cases in Delaware and an ITC investigation against Thales and three of its customers on December 17, 2020.[4] The ITC investigation, Inv. No. 337-TA-1240 (the “ITC investigation”) and one of the Delaware cases, C.A. No. 20-1713 (the “District Court Action”) shared the same asserted patents, which Philips claimed are essential. Those patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,944,935, 7,554,943, 8,199,711, and 7,831,271 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The second district court case brought by Philips asserted six additional, non-essential patents, against the same parties, C.A. No. 20-1709[5].

Philips’ complaint sought declaratory judgment setting worldwide FRAND licensing terms and alleged infringement of the Asserted Patents. Thales counterclaimed, alleging breach of contract of Philips’ contractual duties to the European Telecommunication Standards Institute (ETSI)[6] and seeking declaratory judgment setting FRAND terms.[7] Contemporaneous with its answer, on March 5, 2021, Thales filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Philips from pursuing the ITC investigation. Thales claimed the ITC action divested the district court of its authority and was an attempt to extract a supra-FRAND royalty rate.

Thales argued it was likely to succeed on its breach of contract claim in addition to its declaratory judgment claim because both parties requested the same relief, a FRAND rate determination by the court. On irreparable harm, Thales claimed imminent risk of losing market share, customers, sales, and business opportunity, as well as business disruption, as a result of Philips’ seeking an ITC exclusion order. Thales clarified that the irreparable harm was “the uncertainty and the cloud hanging over our head from now until [the ITC rules].”

At the preliminary injunction hearing in May 2021,[8] Chief Judge Connolly, ruling from the bench, denied Thales’ motion. Chief Judge Connolly found the irreparable harm evidence conclusory and that litigating on parallel tracks in the ITC and District Court did not constitute irreparable harm. Chief Judge Connolly also ruled that Thales had not established likelihood of success. Following denial of the preliminary injunction on May 21, 2021, Thales noticed an appeal to the Federal Circuit on June 21, 2021. The Delaware Action was stayed and administratively closed on August 20, 2021, pending resolution of the ITC investigation.

III. ITC INVESTIGATION

While Thales and Philips litigated in Delaware, the ITC investigation proceeded at full pace. As discussed above, Philips filed its complaint at the ITC on December 17, 2020, the same day as the District Court Action. The complaint asserted the same four patents against Thales and the same three customers plus Telit Wireless Solutions, Inc. and Telit Communications PLC.[9] The Commission instituted the investigation on January 19, 2021.[10]

Following an evidentiary hearing in October 2021, Administrative Law Judge David Shaw found no violation in the Final Initial Determination (ID) on April 1, 2022. In addition to finding no violation, ALJ Shaw found multiple claims of the Asserted Patents invalid. On July 6, 2022, the Commission released a Notice of Determination reviewing certain findings, taking no position on many findings, and affirming portions of the ID. The Commission maintained the finding of no violation, and adopted only the following other findings:

(1) the asserted claims of the ’935 patent, the ’711 patent, the ’943 patent, and the ’271 patent are not infringed; (2) Philips did not satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to any of the four asserted patents; (3) claim 9 of the ’711 patent and claim 12 of the ’943 patent are invalid as indefinite; and (4) the asserted claims of the ’271 patent are invalid as indefinite and for lack of written description.

As part of its review, the Commission requested public interest statements from the public. One submission, from Chair Khan and Commissioner Slaughter of the FTC urged the ITC to utilize its Public Interest statute to deny relief to any Complainants asserting patents that are subject to FRAND-setting litigation in other forums.[11] In light of the finding of no violation, the Commission did not need to consider the effect of the proposed remedy on the public interest as required by statute.[12]

IV. APPEAL AT THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

On July 13, 2022, one week after the ITC released its Final Notice, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of Thales’ preliminary injunction and awarded costs to Philips. Chief Judge Kimberly Moore’s opinion focused exclusively on Thales’ failure to show it was likely to suffer irreparable harm from Philips’ ITC action. Like Chief Judge Connolly, Chief Judge Moore found the evidence presented conclusory. Thales did not meet its burden because it failed to present evidence that it lost customers, had customers delay purchase, or struggled to acquire new business because of the ongoing ITC proceedings. Rather, the ITC investigation caused customers to voice concerns or express doubt. The Court reasoned that “This type of speculative harm does not justify the rare and extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction.”

V. TAKEAWAYS

While this dispute seemed prepared to make policy waves in the SEP space, there will be future cases that give rise to similar issues. Even now, Apple and Ericsson are litigating SEPs at the ITC and in District Court.[13] That dispute may reach some of the policy questions raised in this case and specifically in Chair Khan and Commissioner Slaughter’s Public Interest Statement from this investigation.

[1] Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Thales DIS AIS USA LLC, No. 2021-2106 (Fed. Cir. July 13, 2022).

[2] Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Thales DIS AIS USA LLC, C.A. 20-1713 (D. Del.).

[3] Certain UMTS & LTE Cellular Communications Modules & Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1240 (USITC).

[4] The customers include CalAmp Corp., Xirgo Technologies, LLC, and Laird Connectivity, Inc.

[5] Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Thales DIS AIS USA LLC, C.A. 20-1713 (D. Del.).

[6] Both Philips and Thales are members of ETSI, a standard setting organization for digital cellular communications.

[7] Thales USA answered separately on April 5th and did not include counterclaims. Thales USA moved to be severed and dismissed as misjoined party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 on April 5, 2021.

[8] The transcript of the May 21, 2021, hearing can be found attached to Philips’ Opening Brief to the Federal Circuit.

[9] Philips also asserted the four essential patents against Telit in Delaware District Court, Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Telit Wireless Sols., Inc., C.A. 20-1711 (CFC) (D. Del.).

[10] 86 FR 7305 (Jan. 19, 2021).

[11] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Written_Submission_on_the_Public_Interest_if_Chair_Khan_and_
Commissioner_Slaughter_to_ITC.pdf.

[12] 19 U.S.C. §§ 1337(d)(1), (f)(1).

[13] Certain Mobile Telephones, Tablet Computers With Cellular Connectivity, & Smart Watches With Cellular Connectivity, Components Thereof, & Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 1299 (USITC); Ericsson Inc. v. Apple, Inc., C.A. 6:22-cv-60 (W.D. Tex.).

Categories
Antitrust Patents

Jonathan Barnett on Competition Regulators and Standard-Essential Patents

The following post comes from Connor Sherman, a 2L at Scalia Law and a Research Assistant at CPIP.

circuit boardBy Connor Sherman

The field of intellectual property (IP) can sometimes be wrong in its approach towards promoting economic health, especially when that approach overlaps with antitrust law. An example of this is laid out in a new article by CPIP Senior Fellow for Innovation Policy Jonathan Barnett at Competition Policy International’s Antitrust Chronical entitled How and Why Almost Every Competition Regulator Was Wrong About Standard-Essential Patents. In the article, Prof. Barnett explains how antitrust regulators discourage investment and limit innovation when they take enforcement actions without first gathering rigorous evidence of market harm.

A standard-essential patent (SEP) is a core innovation that entire industries build upon—in other words, an innovation that is necessary to include in a product in order to comply with an industry specific standard. A business cannot just slap Wi-Fi or Bluetooth onto its new smart lightbulb without including the functions associated with those standards. This protects consumers from false advertising, but it also protects the goodwill or quality assured by those standards.

For many years, the consensus among academics, courts, and general opinion has been that the owners of these SEPs will, if given the chance, engage in a form of economic harm called a “patent holdup.” As used in the article, a holdup can be understood as raising the cost of using a patent once it has been identified as a standard innovation. In response to this consensus, regulators have attempted to use antitrust law to prevent patent holdup from occurring.

However, Prof. Barnett encourages skepticism of this premise for several reasons. Most prominently, claims of patent holdup often will fail to meet the basic antitrust injury standard of causing competitive harm. In fact, more often than not, legal issues relating to the licensing of SEPs are resolved under exactly the fields of law one would expect—that is, under patent law with regard to the validity of the patent and under contract law with regard to the validity of the licensing agreement. Another reason presented by Prof. Barnett is the lack of empirical evidence of the expected harm to justify the intervention. Without sound evidence of anticompetitive harm, it makes little sense to employ policies aimed at preventing the nonexistent harm from occurring.

Both the 1995 and 2017 Antitrust Guidelines, issued by the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, view IP licensing as having procompetitive effects, yet the actions of regulatory agencies have been inconsistent with that understanding. Prof. Barnett states that the rush to include antitrust considerations may reflect an ongoing failure to appreciate the functionality of patent licensing agreements. After all, if a patented innovation demonstrably harms competition in an already established industry, one can presume that the innovation was either so obvious as to be improperly issued or so revolutionary as to deserve the benefits provided by the patent. In the former situation, that patent will likely be invalidated, and in the latter, the patent owner deserves the reward for creating a useful innovation.

Prof. Barnett states that a strong indictment of the current policy is reflected in the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in FTC v. Qualcomm, which overturned the lower court’s imposition of an antitrust penalty based on an erroneous view of SEPs. The lower court’s position was that Qualcomm would continue to invest in innovation under the same licensing-based business model while receiving lower rewards. Prof. Barnett argues that the more likely outcome would have been for Qualcomm to begin vertical integration, freeing it from the duty to deal with obligations of antitrust law. He then explains that the hypothetical harm of patent holdup would be minor compared to the harm that would occur from encouraging the consolidation of businesses around closely guarded, industry-changing innovations.

Prof. Barnett reasons that where patents are weak and antitrust laws are strict, the monetization structure of firms will be internal—even if funding for innovations remains robust. In the inverse situation, however, the range of feasible monetization structures are expanded to include third party firms. Thus, Prof. Barnett argues that in such a situation, an IP owner will be encouraged to license out its patents to all interested users at a modest rate in order to encourage widespread adoption of the invention.

It remains to be settled whether the long-held skepticism of SEP licensing is counterproductive, as Prof. Barnett claims. However, if Prof. Barnett is correct, this period of SEP uncertainty will perhaps provide an excellent lesson about enacting antitrust policy without the empirical evidence to back it up.

Categories
FTC Innovation

Unverified Theory Continues to Inform FTC’s Policies Toward Patent Owners

dictionary entry for the word "innovate"The Federal Trade Commission’s unfair competition case against Qualcomm, Inc., has now concluded. The parties gave their closing arguments on Tuesday, January 29, and all that remains is Judge Lucy Koh’s ruling. To prevail, the FTC needed to demonstrate actual, quantifiable harm. It completely failed to do so.

The FTC’s complaint charged Qualcomm with using anticompetitive tactics to maintain its alleged monopoly position as a supplier of certain baseband processors (chips that manage cellular communications in mobile products). Specifically, the FTC alleged that Qualcomm engaged in “exclusionary conduct” through a “no license, no chips” policy in which it supplied CDMA[1] and Premium LTE chips[2] only on the condition that cell phone manufacturers agreed to Qualcomm’s license terms. The FTC claimed that Qualcomm’s conduct reduced competitors’ ability and incentive to innovate and raised prices paid by consumers for cellular devices.

In support of this position, the FTC offered Carl Shapiro, an Economics Professor from Berkeley, as an expert witness. Shapiro argued that Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy gave it the market power to demand “supra-FRAND”[3] royalties. He claimed these royalties harmed competition by raising rivals’ costs, weakening them as competitors, and deterring them from doing R&D. Shapiro asserted that Qualcomm had monopoly power over CDMA and Premium LTE markets through 2016.

There are (at least) two glaring errors regarding the FTC’s and Shapiro’s arguments. First, the relevant market definitions for “CDMA” and “Premium LTE” chips are fatally flawed. Regarding CDMA, the FTC defined the relevant market solely as CDMA chips, yet the market includes both CDMA and WCDMA[4] chips, with WCDMA selling 5x more chips than CDMA. Regarding Premium LTE, there is no “premium” chip market separate from other mobile chips. What the FTC and Shapiro define as “premium” actually represents the end-result of a normal product evolution where newer, more innovative chips are incorporated first into higher-end devices. And even if one considers only Premium LTE chips, Qualcomm had a first-mover advantage because it invented the technology. A first-mover advantage is not an antitrust violation. The result of both flawed market definitions is an economic theoretical shell-game to divert attention from the fact that there is simply no evidence of harm to the properly defined actual market.[5]

And this leads to the second and even more critical point: the FTC presented no real-world evidence of harm to competitors or consumers from Qualcomm’s alleged exclusionary conduct. If R&D had been deterred by Qualcomm’s licensing practices, as Shapiro argued, he should have been able to identify at least one actual example.[6] Under his theory, the lack of ongoing R&D and harm to competitors should have resulted in an increasing number of inferior cell phones provided by a decreasing number of companies. To the contrary, more and more competitors have been entering the chip market with more and more innovations as cellular technology has advanced from 3G to 4G. Cell phone quality has dramatically increased over time, without concomitant quality-adjusted price increases.[7]

Notwithstanding the flawed market definition and lack of harm, the FTC has misconstrued the underlying basis for Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” licensing policy, teeing it up as objectively anticompetitive and onerous. Yet, Qualcomm’s policy simply seeks to prevent “patent holdout” as a legitimate business strategy. Without this policy, device manufacturers could build phones using Qualcomm’s chips, then simply refuse to pay Qualcomm for its telecommunications patents. Qualcomm’s only recourse would be to sue for patent infringement, while the device manufacturers continue to profit from use of the chips. The “no-license, no chips” policy ensures that device manufacturers negotiate necessary patent licenses before receiving chips to build phones.

Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice, Makan Delrahim, has stated that condemning this kind of licensing practice, in isolation, as an antitrust violation, while ignoring equal incentives for patent holdout, “risks creating ‘false positive’ errors of over-enforcement that would discourage valuable innovation.” (Delrahim also recently criticized the FTC’s entire case saying that disputes about patent licensing should not be decided by antitrust law.)

The FTC, its experts, and its industry witnesses, however, are basically advocating for patent holdout as a legally legitimate, even preferable, strategy for dealing with patent owners like Qualcomm. Professor Shapiro’s model, in particular, advanced patent holdout in lieu of up-front patent licensing. Shapiro would require a patent owner to wait and then sue for infringement as a prerequisite to any license negotiations. But forcing the patent owner to pursue judicial recourse through a time-consuming and costly patent infringement suit leverages the cost of litigation to artificially decrease the ultimate reward to the patentee.

At the close of this case, one is left wondering why. Why did the FTC pursue a “midnight” filing at the tail end of the Obama Administration, just days before President Trump took office? Why did the FTC pursue the case over Commissioner Ohlhausen’s strong dissent in which she argued that the case was based on a flawed legal theory “that lacks economic and evidentiary support” and that “by its mere issuance, will undermine U.S. intellectual property rights in Asia and worldwide”? And finally, why is the FTC attempting to cripple Qualcomm in the developing 5G technological space in favor of China’s Huawei[8], which will result in actual, quantifiable harm to the U.S.’s competitive advantage over China?

[1] CDMA, which stands for “code-division multiple access,” permits several transmitters to send information over a single communication channel and is a second generation (2G) network used in mobile device.

[2] LTE, which stands for “long term evolution,” is a fourth generation (4G) standard for high-speed wireless communication used in mobile devices.

[3] FRAND stands for “fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory.”

[4] WCDMA stands for “wide band code division multiple access.” It is a third generation (3G) network used in mobile devices.

[5] This is the same game the FTC played in the 1990s with Microsoft where the FTC defined the relevant market as operating systems for IBM compatible PCs, but that argument only worked if one excluded Apple, Linux, and other operating systems. These type of games about defining the relevant market are common in the high-tech context, and the FTC is repeating it here.

[7] “Several empirical studies demonstrate that the observed pattern in high-tech industries, especially in the smartphone industry, is one of constant lower quality-adjusted prices, increased entry and competition, and higher performance standards.” See: https://cip2.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2018/02/Letter-to-DOJ-Supporting-Evidence-Based-Approach-to-Antitrust-Enforcement-of-IP.pdf.

[8] One also wonders why the FTC relied so heavily on Huawei’s testimony in this case given the Trump Administration’s repeated concerns about this company culminating in the Department of Justice’s recent 10-count indictment against Huawei for theft of trade secrets, wire fraud, and obstruction of justice.

Categories
FTC Innovation

CPIP Scholars Join Comment Letter to FTC Supporting Evidence-Based Approach to IP Policymaking

a hand reaching for a hanging, shining keyOn December 21, 2018, CPIP Senior Scholars Jonathan Barnett, Chris Holman, Erika Lietzan, Adam Mossoff, Sean O’Connor, and Kristen Osenga joined a comment letter that was filed with the FTC as part of its ongoing hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century. The comment letter was joined by 18 legal academics, economists, and former government officials—including former USPTO Director David Kappos and former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel. The comment letter is copied below.

***

December 21, 2018

Via Electronic Submission

Mr. Donald S. Clark
Secretary of the Commission
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20580

Re: Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century Hearings—
Public Comments Following Hearing #4 on Innovation and Intellectual Property Policy

Dear Secretary Clark,

As legal academics, economists, and former government officials who are experts in antitrust law and intellectual property law, we respectfully submit these comments and an Appendix in response to the request for public comments following the Federal Trade Commission’s Hearings on Innovation and Intellectual Property Policy held October 23-24, 2018, as part of the FTC’s Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century.

We support evidence-based policy-making by the FTC concerning all aspects of technological innovation, intellectual property (IP) rights, and the relationship between IP rights and innovation markets. It is imperative that the FTC ground any policy statements, investigations, or enforcement actions, not on academic theories about how IP rights might potentially be misused in stylized theoretical models, but on persuasive evidence of actual consumer harm from anti-competitive practices in real-world markets. Otherwise, regulatory overreach could undermine the economic incentives and resulting stream of innovative products and services that consumers enjoy in markets in which reliable and effective IP rights attract the private capital necessary to fund the high costs of R&D and the commercialization process.

Few economists and policymakers would question that reliable and effective property rights are a necessary predicate for supporting investment in conventional physical-goods markets. Logic holds that this economic principle applies for the innovators, investors, and entrepreneurs in the information technology and life sciences markets at the core of the US innovation economy.

Given reliable and effective IP rights, multiple empirical studies support the proposition that firms are more willing to incur substantial costs and bear significant risks in undertaking long-term R&D. Two well-known examples are the approximately $2.6 billion dollars required to bring a new drug to market or the billions in dollars required to develop new communications technologies like 5G. These and other long-term R&D investments occur in commercial environments in which courts and administrative agencies secure reliable and effective IP rights.

In recent years, antitrust agencies have sometimes taken policy actions in IP-intensive markets that overlook this fundamental connection between secure property rights, investment incentives, R&D, and commercialization activities. These regulatory actions have been based on academic theories and anecdotal reports that have not been put to thoroughgoing, rigorous empirical tests.

To illustrate the risks of making policy without firm empirical support, consider the smartphone industry. For over a decade, theoretical predictions have been made that comparatively high numbers of patents covering technologies used in a single multi-component consumer product—a smartphone—would create “patent thickets,” “royalty stacking,” and “patent holdup” that would increase prices, constrain output, and stunt innovation. Based on these conjectures, antitrust agencies around the world have issued policy statements, undertaken enforcement actions, and imposed billions of dollars in fines—often directed at the firms that had pioneered the fundamental technologies behind wireless communications. Yet those proposing this testable hypothesis never actually tested it. Empirical researchers who subsequently did so found little to no evidence of “patent holdup.” Contrary to theory, real-world market conditions in the smartphone industry are characterized by constant lower quality-adjusted prices, robust market entry by new producers, and continuously increasing performance standards. Consumers in the US and around the globe have benefited from the virtuous feedback effect between secure property rights in new technologies, strong investment flows, and robust R&D output. The evidentiary burden surely rests on those who propose taking policy actions that would erode the property-rights foundation behind this technological and economic success story.

The smartphone industry is just one of multiple innovation markets that exhibit a positive relationship between reliable and effective patent rights, increased innovation, and economic growth. This evidence demonstrates a close relationship in the biopharmaceutical, medical device and certain information technology markets between patent protection and startups’ ability to secure financing for R&D and to undertake the costly commercial task of translating R&D into new products and services for consumers. This relationship is especially powerful in the case of startups that are often the source of breakthrough innovation. One empirical study shows that a startup with a patent more than doubles its chances of obtaining venture capital funding compared to a startup without a patent. Without a secure IP portfolio, venture capital and other investors will decline to support startups that often have few other legal or commercial mechanisms by which to secure their products and services against imitation by larger incumbents. For similar reasons, larger firms that specialize in R&D but do not have downstream production and distribution capacities require a secure IP portfolio to support a licensing infrastructure that generates the returns necessary to fund continued R&D that ultimately benefits downstream companies in the value chain and end-users in the marketplace.

Antitrust policy has long followed an error-cost approach that takes into account the relative costs associated with overenforcement (false positive errors) and underenforcement (false negative errors) of the antitrust laws. Consistent with this approach, the FTC’s policymaking and enforcement actions in innovation markets should be based on valid empirical evidence that makes it possible to weigh the likely costs and benefits of the agency’s actions.

This concern is especially relevant in evaluating the likelihood of consumer harm and the impact on innovation from patent infringement litigation. Like any form of civil litigation, patent litigation can be used for either legitimate or opportunistic purposes. Based on a limited body of evidence that suffers from substantial methodological shortcomings, antitrust agencies have issued statements and taken actions supporting blanket denials of the availability of injunctive relief for all patent owners who primarily license their technologies (“non-practicing entities”).

A broader empirical literature has looked more closely with rigorous analysis and uncovered a far more nuanced market and legal reality. First, no empirical study has demonstrated that patent owners’ requests for injunctive relief after findings of defendants’ infringement of their property rights have resulted systematically either in consumer harm or in slowing down the pace of technological innovation. Second, researchers have found that the “non-practicing entities” or “patent assertion entities” rubric encompasses a large number of business models that generate social gains by providing licensing and other mechanisms for undercapitalized individual inventors, startups, small firms, and universities. These innovators lack the commercial means to extract revenue from R&D that can generate valuable new products and services for consumers. Painting all of these entities with the same rhetorical broad brush threatens to unravel a rich ecosystem of inventors, startups, and entrepreneurs that rely on the legal backstop of injunctive relief to support markets in intellectual assets. Abusive litigation practices by a limited number of patent owners could and should be targeted surgically through fee-shifting and other standard tools available in all civil litigation. Again, regulatory intervention without a firm evidentiary basis runs the risk of harming consumer welfare by undermining the reliable and effective patent rights on which innovators, venture capitalists, startups, and other market participants rely in creating and expanding the innovation markets that benefit everyone.

In support, we attach an Appendix of articles that provide rigorous empirical studies and evidence-based analyses of IP-driven innovation markets, patent licensing, and patent litigation.

In conclusion, the FTC should continue to develop policies and undertake enforcement actions only with evidence of proven harms to consumers and with proper consideration of the costs in undermining reliable and effective IP rights that have consumer-welfare enhancing effects in the US innovation economy. A balanced consideration of the evidence on both harms and benefits is necessary to ensure balanced protection of innovators and consumers. We are confident that a commitment by the FTC to a program of evidence-based policy-making will lead to a vibrant, dynamic innovation economy supported by a secure foundation of IP rights that will continue to benefit consumers in the US and around the world.

Sincerely,

Kristina M. L. Acri
Associate Professor of Economics
The Colorado College

Jonathan Barnett
Professor of Law
USC Gould School of Law

Andrew Beckerman-Rodau
Professor of Law
Suffolk University Law School

Ronald A. Cass
Dean Emeritus,
Boston University School of Law
Former Vice-Chairman and Commissioner,
United States International Trade Commission

The Honorable Douglas H. Ginsburg
Senior Circuit Judge,
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and
Professor of Law,
Antonin Scalia Law School
George Mason University

Stephen Haber
A.A. and Jeanne Welch Milligan Professor
Stanford University

Christopher M. Holman
Professor of Law
UKMC School of Law

Keith N. Hylton
William Fairfield Warren Distinguished Professor
Boston University School of Law

David J. Kappos
Former Under Secretary of Commerce and Director
United States Patent & Trademark Office

Erika Lietzan
Associate Professor of Law
University of Missouri School of Law

The Honorable Paul Michel
Chief Judge (Ret.),
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Damon C. Matteo
Course Professor
Tsinghua University in Beijing

Adam Mossoff
Professor of Law
Antonin Scalia Law School
George Mason University

Sean M. O’Connor
Boeing International Professor of Law
University of Washington School of Law

Kristen Osenga
Professor of Law
University of Richmond School of Law

Matthew L. Spitzer
Howard and Elizabeth Chapman Professor of Law
Northwestern University School of Law

Saurabh Vishnubhakat
Associate Professor of Law
Texas A&M University School of Law

Joshua D. Wright
University Professor,
Antonin Scalia Law School
George Mason University
Former Commissioner,
Federal Trade Commission

APPENDIX

Kristina M. L. Acri, née Lybecker, Economic Growth and Prosperity Stem from Effective Intellectual Property Rights, 24 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 865 (2017), http://georgemasonlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/24_4_Lybecker.pdf

Ashish Arora & Robert P. Merges, Specialized Supply Firms, Property Rights and Firm Boundaries, 14 Ind. & Corp. Change 451 (2005)

Jonathan H. Ashtor, Does Patented Information Promote Progress? (June 22, 2017), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2857697

Jonathan H. Ashtor, Opening Pandora’s Box: Analyzing the Complexity of U.S. Patent Litigation, 18 Yale J. L. & Tech. 217 (2016), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2736556

Jonathan M. Barnett, Antitrust Overreach: Undoing Cooperative Standardization in the Digital Economy (Nov. 2018), https://ssrn.com/abstract=3277667

Jonathan M. Barnett, Has the Academy Led Patent Law Astray?, 32 Berk. Tech. L. J. 1313 (2017), http://btlj.org/data/articles2017/vol32/32_4/Barnett_web.pdf

Jonathan M. Barnett, From Patent Thickets to Patent Networks: The Legal Infrastructure of the Digital Economy, 55 Jurimetrics J. 1 (2014), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2431917

Jonathan M. Barnett, Three Quasi-Fallacies in the Conventional Understanding of Intellectual Property, 12 Journal of Law, Econ. and Pol. 1 (2016), https://ssrn.com/abstract=265636

Christopher A. Cotropia, Jay P. Kesan & David L. Schwartz, Unpacking Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs), 99 Minn. L. Rev. 649 (2014), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2346381

Richard Epstein, F. Scott Kieff & Daniel F. Spulber, The FTC, IP, and SSOs: Government Hold-Up Replacing Private Coordination, 8 J. Comp. L. & Econ. 1 (2012), https://ssrn.com/abstract=1907450

Richard A. Epstein & Kayvan Noroozi, Why Incentives for Patent Hold Out Threaten to Dismantle FRAND and Why It Matters, 32 Berkeley Tech. L. J. (2018), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2913105

Joan Farre-Mensa, Deepak Hegde, & Alexander Ljungqvist, What Is a Patent Worth? Evidence from the U.S. Patent ‘Lottery’ (USPTO Econ. Working Paper No. 2015-5, Mar. 2017), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2704028

Alexander Galetovic & Stephen Haber, The Fallacies of Patent Holdup Theory, 13 J. Comp. L. & Econ. 1 (2017), https://academic.oup.com/jcle/article/13/1/1/3060409

Alexander Galetovic, Stephen Haber, & Lew Zaretzki, An Estimate of the Average Cumulative Royalty Yield in the World Mobile Phone Industry: Theory, Measurement and Results (Feb. 7, 2018), https://hooverip2.org/working-paper/wp18005

Alexander Galetovic, Stephen Haber, & Ross Levine, An Empirical Examination of Patent Hold Up, 11 J. Comp. L. & Econ. 549 (2015), https://academic.oup.com/jcle/article/11/3/549/800066

Douglas H. Ginsburg, Koren W. Wong-Ervin, & Joshua Wright, The Troubling Use of Antitrust to Regulate FRAND Licensing, CPI Antitrust Chronicle (Oct. 2015), https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/assets/Uploads/GinsburgetalOct-151.pdf

Douglas H. Ginsburg, Taylor M. Ownings, & Joshua D. Wright, Enjoining Injunctions: The Case Against Antitrust Liability for Standard Essential Patent Holders Who Seek Injunctions, The Antitrust Source (Oct. 2014), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2515949

Stuart J.H. Graham & Ted Sichelman, Why Do Start-Ups Patent?, 23 Berk. Tech. L. J. 1063 (2008), https://ssrn.com/abstract=1121224

Stuart J.H. Graham & Saurabh Vishnubhakat, Of Smart Phone Wars and Software Patents, 27 J. Econ. Persp. 67 (2013), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2291603

Kirti Gupta, Technology Standards and Competition in the Mobile Wireless Industry, 22 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 865 (2015), http://www.georgemasonlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/GuptaTechStandards.pdf

Stephen Haber, Patents and the Wealth of Nations, 23 George Mason L. Rev. 811 (2016), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2776773

Christopher M. Holman, The Critical Role of Patents in the Development, Commercialization and Utilization of Innovative Genetic Diagnostic Tests and Personalized Medicine, 21 B.U. J. Sci. & Tech. L. 297 (2015), http://www.bu.edu/jostl/files/2015/12/HOLMAN_ART_FINALweb.pdf

Ryan T. Holte, Trolls or Great Inventors: Case Studies of Patent Assertion Entities, 59 St. Louis U. L.J. 1 (2014), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2426444

Albert G.Z. Hu and I.P.L. Png, Patent Rights and Economic Growth: Evidence from Cross-Country Panels of Manufacturing Industries, 65 Oxford Econ. Papers 675 (2013), https://academic.oup.com/oep/article-abstract/65/3/675/2362113

Keith N. Hylton, Patent Uncertainty: Toward a Framework with Applications, 96 B.U. L. Rev. 1117 (2016), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2714434

Zorina Khan, Trolls and Other Patent Inventions: Economic History and the Patent Controversy in the Twenty-First Century, 21 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 825 (2014), http://www.georgemasonlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Khan-WebsiteVersion.pdf

Scott Kieff & Anne Layne-Farrar, Incentive Effects from Different Approaches to Holdup Mitigation Surrounding Patent Remedies and Standard-Setting Organizations, 9 J. Comp. L. & Econ. 1091 (2013), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274522003_Incentive_effects_from_different_approaches_to_holdup_mitigation_surrounding_patent_remedies_and_standard-setting_organizations

Bruce H. Koboyashi & Joshua D. Wright, Federalism, Substantive Preemption, and Limits on Antitrust: An Application to Patent Holdup, 5 J. Comp. L. & Econ. 1 (2009), https://ssrn.com/abstract=1143602

Bruce H. Koboyashi & Joshua D. Wright, The Limits of Antitrust and Patent Holdup: A Reply to Cary et al., 78 Antitrust L.J. 505 (2012), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2704591

Anne Layne-Farrar, Why Patent Holdout is Not Just a Fancy Name for Plain Old Patent Infringement, CPI North American Column (Feb. 2016), https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/NorthAmerica-Column-February-Full.pdf

Anne Layne-Farrar, Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking Theory and Evidence: Where Do We Stand After 15 Years of History?, OECD Intellectual Property and Standard Setting (Nov. 18, 2014), http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DAF/COMP/WD%282014%2984&doclanguage=en

Anne Layne-Farrar, Moving Past the SEP RAND Obsession: Some Thoughts on the Economic Implications of Unilateral Commitments and the Complexities of Patent Licensing, 21 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1093 (2014), http://www.georgemasonlawreview.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/06/Layne-Farrar-Website-Version.pdf

Gerard Llobet & Jorge Padilla, The Optimal Scope of the Royalty Base in Patent Licensing, 59 J. L. & Econ. 45 (2016), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2417216

Alan C. Marco & Saurabh Vishnubhakat, Certain Patents, 16 Yale J.L. & Tech. 103 (2013), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2324538

Kevin R. Madigan & Adam Mossoff, Turning Gold to Lead: How Patent Eligibility Doctrine is Undermining U.S. Leadership in Innovation, 24 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 939 (2017), http://georgemasonlawreview.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/11/24_4_Madigan_Mossoff_2.pdf

Keith Mallinson, Don’t Fix What Isn’t Broken: The Extraordinary Record of Innovation and Success in the Cellular Industry under Existing Licensing Practices, 23 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 967 (2016), http://www.georgemasonlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/Mallinson-FINAL.pdf

Keith Mallinson, Theories of Harm with SEP Licensing Do Not Stack Up, IP Fin. Blog (May 24, 2013), http://www.ip.finance/2013/05/theories-of-harm-with-sep-licensing-do.html

Ronald J. Mann, Do Patents Facilitate Financing in the Software Industry?, 83 Tex. L. Rev. 961 (2005), https://ssrn.com/abstract=510103

Jorge Padilla & Koren W. Wong-Ervin, Portfolio Licensing to Makers of Downstream End-User Devices: Analyzing Refusals to License FRAND-Assured Standard-Essential Patents at the Component Level, 62 The Antitrust Bulletin 494 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X17719762

Kristen Osenga, Formerly Manufacturing Entities: Piercing the “Patent Troll” Rhetoric, 47 Conn. L. Rev. 435 (2014), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2476556

Kristen Osenga, Ignorance Over Innovation: Why Misunderstanding Standard Setting Operations Will Hinder Technological Progress, 56 U. Louisville L. Rev. 159 (2018). https://scholarship.richmond.edu/law-faculty-publications/1502/

Kristen Osenga, Sticks and Stones: How the FTC’s Name-Calling Misses the Complexity of Licensing-Based Business Models, 22 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1001 (2015), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2834140

Jonathan D. Putnam & Tim A. Williams, The Smallest Salable Patent-Practicing Unit (SSPPU): Theory and Evidence (Sept. 2016), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2835617

David L. Schwartz & Jay P. Kesan, Analyzing the Role of Non-Practicing Entities in the Patent System, 99 Cornell L. Rev. 425 (2014), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2117421

Gregory Sidak, What Aggregate Royalty Do Manufacturers of Mobile Phones Pay to License Standard-Essential Patents?, 1 Criterion J. Innovation 701 (2016), https://www.criterioninnovation.com/articles/sidak-aggregate-royalty-to-license-standard-essential-patents.pdf

Gregory Sidak, The Antitrust Division’s Devaluation of Standard-Essential Patents, 104 Geo. L.J. Online 48 (2015), https://georgetownlawjournal.org/articles/161/antitrust-division-sdevaluation-of/pdf

Gregory Sidak, Testing for Bias to Suppress Royalties for Standard-Essential Patents, 1 Criterion J. on Innovation 301 (2016), https://www.criterioninnovation.com/articles/sidak-bias-to-suppress-sep-royalties.pdf

Matthew Spitzer, Patent Trolls, Nuisance Suits, and the Federal Trade Commission, 20 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 75 (2018), https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncjolt/vol20/iss1/2

Daniel F. Spulber, Standard Setting Organizations and Standard Essential Patents: Voting and Markets, Econ. J. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12606

Daniel F. Spulber, Patent Licensing and Bargaining with Innovative Complements and Substitutes (June 2018), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2818008

Daniel F. Spulber, How Patents Provide the Foundation of the Market for Inventions, 11 J. Comp. L. & Econ. 271 (2015), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2487564

David J. Teece, Competing Through Innovation: Technology Strategy and Antitrust Policies (Edward Elgar, 2013), https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/competing-through-innovation

David J. Teece, Edward F. Sherry, & Peter Grindley, Patents and ‘Patent Wars’ in Wireless Communications: An Economic Assessment, 95 Comm. & Strat. 85 (2014), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2603751

David J. Teece & Edward F. Sherry, On Patent ‘Monopolies’: An Economic Re-Appraisal, CPI Antitrust Chronicle (Apr. 2017), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2962208

Joanna Tsai & Joshua D. Wright, Standard Setting, Intellectual Property Rights, and the Role of Antitrust in Regulating Incomplete Contracts, 80 Antitrust L.J. 157 (2015), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2467939

Gregory J. Werden & Luke M. Froeb, Why Patent Hold-Up Does Not Violate Antitrust Law (Sep. 24, 2018), https://ssrn.com/abstract=3244425

Joshua D. Wright, SSOs, FRAND, and Antitrust: Lessons from the Economics of Incomplete Contracts, 21 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 791 (2014), http://www.georgemasonlawreview.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/06/Wright-Website-Version.pdf

Ziedonis, Rosemarie H. and Bronwyn H. Hall, The Effects of Strengthening Patent Rights on Firms Engaged in Cumulative Innovation: Insights from the Semiconductor Industry, in Gary D. Libecap (ed.), Entrepreneurial Inputs and Outcomes: New Studies of Entrepreneurship in the United States (2001).

Categories
Innovation Patent Licensing

IP for the Next Generation of Mobile Technology: How Ignorance of Standard Setting Operations Hinders Innovation

In advance of our Sixth Annual Fall Conference on IP for the Next Generation of Technology, we are highlighting works on the challenges brought by the revolutionary developments in mobile technology of the past fifteen years.

hand holding a phone with holographs hovering over the screenThe development and implementation of technology standards is a complex process, and it’s one often misunderstood by commentators, courts, and government agencies. In an article detailing the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) misguided suit against Qualcomm for alleged unwillingness to license its patents on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms, CPIP Senior Scholar Kristen Osenga exposes a pervasive ignorance of technology standards and the standard setting organizations (SSOs) that develop them.

According to Professor Osenga, the lack of sound economic evidence and evidentiary findings in the FTC’s allegations are indicative of a larger and more fundamental lack of knowledge that is negatively impacting important legal, business, and policy decisions. It’s a troubling trend that has the potential to not just hinder the development of technology standards, but innovation itself.

To read the Osenga article, which was published in the University of Louisville Law Review, please click here.