Tag: FRAND

Categories
FTC Patent Law Patents

FTC Chair and Commissioners Weigh in on SEP Litigation at the ITC

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

a gavel lying on a table in front of booksI. INTRODUCTION

In a previous blog post, we discussed the dispute surrounding standard essential patents (SEPs) between Philips and Thales. That dispute included an investigation before the United States International Trade Commission (ITC).[1] As part of that investigation, Chair Lina Khan and Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) submitted a public interest statement to the ITC (Public Interest Statement or Statement).[2] Commissioner Christine Wilson responded to the Statement in a speech at the “IP & Antitrust: Hot Issues” Conference Organized by Concurrences Review (Response or Remarks).[3]

These competing statements by FTC commissioners illustrate a point of contention regarding SEP policy. The Public Interest Statement, submitted by Chair Khan and Commissioner Slaughter, took a policy stance that an exclusion order against an SEP implementer unfairly favors the SEP holder. Meanwhile, Commissioner Wilson’s Response countered that this policy instead tips the balance heavily in favor of implementers, which in her opinion could stifle SEP-holder innovation. This dichotomy of policy goals underlays some of the decisions discussed in the previous blog post about the Philips v. Thales appeal. There, Chief Judge Colm Connolly of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware avoided making policy in his decision, explicitly reserving that for a higher court.[4] The ITC’s Commission opinion in the ITC Investigation took no position on many issues, potentially to avoid tackling these tough issues.[5] And finally, the Federal Circuit affirmed Chief Judge Connolly’s order on the narrowest grounds, likewise sidestepping the policy concerns debated in the Public Interest Statement and Response.[6]

Additionally, as Commissioner Wilson’s Remarks note, Apple and Ericsson are now involved in SEP litigation spanning U.S. courts, international courts, and the ITC.[7] This will once again provide ample opportunity for multiple jurisdictions, including the ITC, to weigh these policy and public interest concerns.

II. CHAIR KHAN AND COMMISSIONER SLAUGHTER’S PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Chair Khan and Commission Slaughter’s Statement advanced a broad policy argument through the lens of an “increasing[] concern that SEP holders . . .  are seeking exclusionary orders . . . for the purpose of gaining leverage.” Through that lens, the Public Interest Statement sought to answer the question, “Is it in the public interest to issue an ITC exclusion order based on a standard essential patent (SEP) where a United States district court has been asked to determine fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing terms?” Answering its own posed question, the Statement urged the ITC to consider the statutory public interest factors[8] with particular attention to the impact an exclusion order obtained by a SEP owner against an SEP implementer would have on competition and consumers in the United States.

Chair Khan and Commissioner Slaughter’s concern focuses heavily on misconduct—hold-up—by SEP owners. Hold-up refers to an SEP holder’s demand for a royalty rate in excess of a FRAND rate after an implementer is locked into the standard. Alternatively, hold-out refers to an implementer’s bad faith delaying of constructive licensing negotiations or unilaterally rejecting of a license.

The Public Interest Statement argues that an SEP owner seeking an exclusion order of SEPs at the ITC perpetuates an imbalance in bargaining power. Chair Khan and Commissioner Slaughter recognize that opportunism may arise from either side, but they view an exclusion order as granting unfair leverage for an SEP holder. This one-sided view was discussed by Commissioner Wilson in her Response and will be discussed below.

The Public Interest Statement further recognized the ITC’s enforcement role in intellectual property rights and the ITC’s view on that enforcement in footnote twelve. However, Chair Khan and Commissioner Slaughter argue that SEPs present different issues than other patents. In their opinion, a royalty negotiation under threat of an exclusion order tips the scale in favor of the SEP owner, who made a FRAND commitment—a commitment that may have helped them get the standardization in the first place. In their view, the exclusion of firms that are willing and able to take FRAND licenses discourages investment in standard driven products and technology.

Additionally, hidden in the first footnote, the Statement declined to address whether “seeking an exclusion order for FRAND-encumbered SEPs would violate Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.” Section 5 of the FTC act covers unfair acts and practices. If the FTC began enforcing Section 5 against SEP owners seeking exclusion orders in the ITC, that would have some of the most drastic short-term changes in SEP policy. Whether that short-term policy change would stand up to judicial review or be the best policy for cultivating innovation remains to be seen.

The Public Interest Statement ultimately moves on to a larger policy rejecting exclusion orders—the only remedy available from the ITC—whenever a court has been asked to set FRAND terms and can make SEP holders whole. (“As a general matter, exclusionary relief is incongruent and against the public interest where a court has been asked to resolve FRAND terms and can make the SEP holder whole.”) In closing, the Public Interest Statement urges the ITC to take its advice that “under no circumstances should Section 337 remedies . . . take effect” until a court asked to resolve the FRAND rate has rendered its decision.

III. COMMISSIONER WILSON’S RESPONSE

Shortly after Chair Khan and Commissioner Slaughter filed their Statement, Commissioner Wilson of the FTC responded with her own critiques. Her Response recognized the same issues but approached those issues from a balancing standpoint. The Response advocated for weighing the rights of SEP holders and implementers and considering both short- and long-term goals.

Commissioner Wilson expressed concern that Chair Khan and Commissioner Slaughter only view hold-up as an antitrust issue. (“In other words, the actions of SEP holders may be unlawful under the antitrust laws, but the actions of patent implementers are immune from scrutiny under those same laws.”) Commissioner Wilson’s Remarks generally pushed the FTC to embrace a balanced approach that favors neither innovators nor implementers but instead focused on incentivizing competition and innovation.

Responding directly to the Public Interest Statement’s call for the ITC to reject exclusion orders where a court has been asked to set FRAND rates, Commissioner Wilson reasoned that the ITC’s public interest analysis already accounts for this type of analysis. Quoting an article from former ITC commissioner and chair Deanna Tanner Okun, the Response explained that the ITC’s public interest factors and process allow allegedly infringing parties the opportunity to argue the SEP holder violated its commitments to the standard setting organization[9] (the point being, why set a blanket prohibition on exclusion orders when the ITC’s processes already account for considering multiple factors in its public interest analysis?).

Commissioner Wilson’s Remarks also touched on the Apple and Ericsson SEP litigation presently occurring in multiple venues, including the ITC. Those proceedings offer another chance for the ITC to consider the Statement and Response’s policy arguments. However, as Commissioner Wilson flagged, unlike in the Philips proceedings, Apple has not committed to accepting the District Court’s FRAND rate. Apple’s non-commitment could be evidence of hold-out, which Commissioner Wilson specifically raised in her Remarks. This change in the fact pattern from the Philips/Thales dispute illustrates how complex and fact-specific SEP proceedings can be.

At bottom, the Response is concerned that the Public Interest Statement’s proposal would tip the balance in favor of SEP implementers when—in Commissioner Wilson’s view—there should be no thumb on the scale. The Response expressed concern with adoption of a one-size-fits-all approach of denying exclusion orders at the ITC whenever a court has been asked to set a FRAND rate. Rather, she posits that the ITC’s public interest factors anticipated complex litigations like those discussed above. Therefore, by the time a case has reached the final stages at the ITC, the Commission or administrative law judge has the necessary information to evaluate the public interest.

IV. TAKEAWAYS

These two policy proposals from FTC commissioners illustrate the complexity of the SEP policy debate, particularly regarding exclusion orders at the ITC. Moving forward, the Apple and Ericsson disputes in multiple courts including the ITC will provide another opportunity for multiple forums to grapple with these competing policies.

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

[2] Written Submission on the Public Interest of Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina M. Khan and Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, in the Matter of Certain UMTS and LTE Cellular Communication Modules and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1240 (USITC May 16, 2022),

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Written_Submission_on_the_Public_Interest_if_Chair_Khan_and_Co mmissioner_Slaughter_to_ITC.pdf.

[3] Christine Wilson, Comm’r, Fed. Trade Comm’n, Remarks at “IP & Antitrust: Hot Issues” Conference Organized by Concurrences Review (June 8, 2022), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Wilson-SEPs-speech_FINAL-06-13-2022.pdf.

[4] Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Thales DIS AIS USA LLC, C.A. 20-1713 (D. Del. May 21, 2021).

[5] Certain UMTS & LTE Cellular Communications Modules & Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1240, Comm’n Notice (USITC July 6, 2022) (EDIS No. 774681).

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

[7] Certain Mobile Telephones, Tablet Computers With Cellular Connectivity, & Smart Watches With Cellular Connectivity, Components Thereof, & Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1299 (USITC).

[8] 19 U.S.C. §§ 1337(d)(1), (f)(1).

[9] Deanna Tanner Okun, Policy Shift Against SEP Rights Poses Risks for U.S. Innovation and Undermines Mandate of the ITC, IPWATCHDOG (May 18, 2022), https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2022/05/18/policy-shift-sep-rights-poses­risks-u-s-innovation-undermines-mandate-itc/id=149116/.

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
Uncategorized

Comment of 25 Law Professors, Economists, and Former U.S. Government Officials in Response to EU Commission Call for Evidence on Standard-Essential Patents

Led by Prof. Adam Mossoff and C-IP2 Senior Fellow and Senior Scholar Prof. Jonathan M. Barnett, twenty-five law professors, economists, and former United States Government officials—including C-IP2 Advisory Board members the Honorable Andrei Iancu, the Honorable David J. Kappos, the Honorable Paul Michel, and the Honorable Randall R. Rader; Faculty Director Prof. Sean M. O’Connor; Senior Scholar Prof. Kristen Osenga; and Scholar Dr. Bowman Heiden—submitted a letter in response to a “call for evidence” on the licensing, litigation, and remedies of standard-essential patents (SEPs). The response discusses core functions of SEPs in the wireless ecosystem, the lack of evidence of Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking, assumptions about SEPs and Market Power, the importance of the potential for injunctive relief even for FRAND, levels of licensing, and SEP licensing in SME markets. The letter is available here on SSRN.

Categories
International Law Patent Law Patent Litigation

Hudson Institute Panel Focuses on Patent Litigation in China

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

a gavel lying on a desk in front of booksBy Wade Cribbs

Questions about how Chinese patent protection operates in the international patent landscape are relevant to both companies doing business in China and policymakers in the United States. China is becoming an increasingly frequent patent litigation location for major international corporations. With this new forum for patent disputes come questions about how China can handle anti-suit injunctions and parallel proceedings regarding fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) agreements for standard-essential patents (SEPs).

To discuss these questions, the Hudson Institute hosted a virtual panel presentation last week entitled Patent Litigation in China: Navigating a Changing Environment. The panel, which was moderated by Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Urška Petrovčič, included Mark Cohen (Distinguished Senior Fellow, University of California Berkeley; Director, Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, Asia Intellectual Property Project), Vivienne Bath (Professor of Chinese International and Business Law, University of Sydney), and He Jing (Founder, GEN Law Firm; Executive Director, Beijing Zhongguancun Intellectual Property Strategy Research Institute).

Mr. Cohen sees differences in patent litigation between western countries—such as the United States and the European Union—and China, particularly with injunctions due to China’s quasi-civil law system and the Chinese economy’s size. He does not view the recent emergence of anti-suit injunctions in China as unusual because they were not necessary, given that China readily awards injunctive relief. It is not unusual for the courts to get through litigation and appeal in China before a U.S. court has commenced discovery. Therefore, a litigant could initiate proceedings in China after suing in the United States and receive an injunction from the Chinese court, using it to compel the party to settle any parallel proceedings.

Mr. Cohen sees no real difference between the current practice of anti-suit injunctions and Chinese courts’ prior practice of ignoring any parallel proceeding. He agrees with Prof. Bath that the shift of Chinese courts to anti-suit injunctions is motivated by judicial sovereignty and the desire to exercise power over international FRAND rate disputes in order to protect Chinese business interests. Mr. Cohen is concerned that this desire is expanding to dictate international behavior in technological markets by leveraging SEP holders.

Mr. Jing believes that the most important SEP disputes in China are focused on the issuance by Chinese courts of anti-suit injunctions, which he notes are relatively recent for these courts. Chinese courts award these injunctions in such circumstances as preventing Huawei from enforcing a German court’s holding of a FRAND rate that was significantly higher than the rate issued by the Chinese courts. Similarly, Chinese courts have issued preliminary anti-suit injunctions against Sharp Corporation, preventing Sharp from initiating litigation in Germany after it began litigation in China.

Mr. Jing admits the logic is straightforward in the case of cell phone manufacturing, since most of the global manufacturing occurs in China. Therefore, he posits that China should have a say in cell phone SEP FRAND rates. However, he is unsure whether there is proper jurisdiction for such cases. To claim jurisdiction in some cases, Chinese courts docket FRAND disputes as contract cases. Mr. Jing’s problem with FRAND as a contract is that there is no concluded contract, and he is not convinced that such disputes meet the specific legal standard required by Chinese law to hear foreign and international contract disputes. Mr. Jing is concerned that Chinese courts are stretching beyond their bounds for jurisdiction and service to hear cases.

Prof. Bath observes that since the Chinese court systems are now fully equipped to handle IP cases, they are incredibly litigious. In this setting, the Chinese Communist Party is trying to tighten its control over the courts’ behavior as the courts streamline the process and improve injunctive enforcement. Prof. Bath sees these two forces resulting in the Chinese court system seeking to use Chinese law in an international setting through attracting dispute resolution to China. The China International Commercial Court and the one-stop diversified dispute resolution, which combine mediation and litigation in the court system, are examples of how the Chinese government is trying to attract foreign arbitration to China.

However, when it comes to international agreements, Prof. Bath notes, China has tended to agree to international instruments only where it is exempt from intellectual property judgments. Prof. Bath warns that, while China is taking steps to make its courts more available for international litigation, it is necessary to remember that the court does not always decide adjudication. Senior judges who did not sit for the case may make the final adjudicative decision, and this risks politicizing any crucial adjudication rulings.

Professor Bath sees the Chinese courts’ problem with parallel proceedings in the form of anti-suit injunctions stemming from its focus on judicial sovereignty. This focus results in China not having many tools to handle parallel proceedings. The Chinese courts will hear almost any suit brought before the court and will not refuse the case because it is already being heard elsewhere, unless a foreign judgment has already been issued and enforced in China. These practices result in foreign judgments being rarely enforced in China as a result of a Chinese court’s having already begun proceedings.

To watch the video of the panel discussion, please click here.

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.

Categories
Innovation Patent Licensing

Study Finds IEEE’s 2015 Patent Policy Sowing Uncertainty and Slowing Innovation

dictionary entry for the word "innovate"By Kevin Madigan & Adam Mossoff

As the world prepares for the game-changing transition to 5G wireless systems, the high-tech industry must continue to efficiently develop and implement technologies and networks that work together across different platforms and devices. Few people are aware of how this happens, because it occurs solely between the companies who develop and implement technological products and services in the marketplace, such as Qualcomm, InterDigital, Microsoft, Apple, and others. These companies participate in private standard setting organizations, which develop technological standards agreed upon by these companies, such as three-prong electrical plugs, USB drives, hard disk storage drives, and even communications technologies such as Wi-Fi and 2G, 3G, and 4G.

In sum, the development of standards is a key part of how new technological innovations are efficiently sold and used by consumers and work for everyone. The reason standard setting organizations came into existence is because the alternative is neither efficient nor good for consumers. A standards “war” between companies in the marketplace leads to years of incompatible devices being sold while consumers wait for one company to establish (private) market dominance with its products and services such that everyone else must use that standard, such as what happened between VHS and Betamax in the 1980s or the market fight between Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD in the 1990s, to name just two examples. Standard setting organizations preempt this unnecessary and wasteful commercial war by bringing together the innovators and implementers of new technology to agree beforehand on a standard so that new standardized products and services can get into the hands of consumers faster.

Unfortunately, some standard setting organizations are changing their rules for the companies that invest hundreds of millions of dollars in long-term R&D to create groundbreaking technologies like those used in our smartphones. These new rules create uncertainty for these innovators. As a result, this uncertainty is threatening investments in new high-tech products and the ongoing growth in the U.S. innovation economy.

Detailing this troubling trend is a recently released, in-depth, and rigorous study by Kirti Gupta and Georgios Effraimidis, which tracks the changes in the rules for the creators and owners of the technologies incorporated into technological standards by one of the largest and more influential organizations—the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers-Standards Association (IEEE). In 2015, the IEEE adopted a new policy governing how owners of patents on technologies incorporated into its technological standards can protect and secure their investments via their legal rights to their patents. This shift in policy required patent owners effectively to relinquish their legal right to stop deliberate and unauthorized uses of their property and thus made it harder for them to license reasonable royalties for the use of their technology equally among all industry stakeholders.

As Gupta and Effraimidis show through detailed analyses, the IEEE’s new policy has distorted the longstanding market processes and licensing negotiations that have led to billions of smartphones being sold to consumers at relatively low cost around the world over the past decade. This is a vitally important study, because it brings key data to the policy discussions about technological standards, patents, and the incredible products and services made possible by them and on which everyone relies on today.

A Quick Summary of Standard Setting Organizations and Patented Technologies

A traditional requirement of the IEEE and several other standard setting organizations is that innovators commit to license equally their patented technologies that are incorporated into an agreed-upon standard for all companies implementing this standard in products and services. The law already provides that a patent owner will receive a “reasonable royalty” as damages for any past unauthorized uses of a patented technology, and thus standard setting organizations added the contractual requirement that this reasonable royalty also be non-discriminatory. To create a pleasant-sounding acronym, the phrase used is that licensing rates for patented technologies incorporated into market standards must be fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND). The goal of FRAND is to ensure that all companies creating products and services that are sold to consumers in the marketplace pay the same rates for incorporating the necessary standardized technologies into these products and services, such as the standardized 4G transmission technology used by everyone’s smartphones.

About a decade ago, some professors and lawyers posited a theory based on an abstract, economic model that owners of patents on technologies incorporated into these standards could exploit their ability to seek injunctions for violations of their patents and thus impose unduly higher costs on the companies implementing these standards in things like smartphones, laptop computers, tablets, and other devices and services. It was a simple story about property owners “holding up” people who wished to use their technologies, cashing in on the ubiquitous knowledge that any property owner can post a sign that says “no trespassing.” Based on this “patent holdup” theory, which deduced from an abstract model that patent owners would demand inordinately high royalties from the companies that need to incorporate agreed-upon technological standards into their products and services, these academics argued for “reforms” in the law to stop “patent holdup.”

But the “patent holdup” theory is just that—a theory. More than a decade of rigorous empirical studies have not only failed to confirm the “patent holdup” hypothesis of systemic market failures in the patent-intensive high-tech industry, and instead have found market conditions that directly contradict the core claim of “patent holdup” theory (see here for a letter to Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim summarizing this research and listing many of the studies). One study has shown that the average royalty rate for key technologies used in smartphones is only 3.4%, which is contrary to the 67% royalty rate predicted by “patent holdup” theory. Another study, among others, found significant quality-adjusted drops in consumer prices of smartphones and increasing entry of new manufacturers of smartphones, as well as other market conditions in the smartphone industry, that directly contradict the predictions of “patent hold” theory.

Unfortunately, in response to lobbying and the successful pushing of the “broken patent system” narrative in Washington, D.C., antitrust regulators forged ahead at the DOJ to push for policy changes at standard setting organizations on the basis of this unproven “patent holdup” theory. (Thankfully, recent antitrust regulators have returned back to evidence-based, balanced policy-making.) Several years after the first article propounding the “patent holdup” theory was published in 2007, implementers began pushing this theory at the IEEE to effect changes in its internal patent policy, which ultimately responded to this effort by revising its patent policy in 2015.

IEEE Policy Changes for Owners of Patents on Technological Standards

As Gupta and Effraimidis explain, the IEEE’s new patent policy has been highly controversial and generated much discussion among academics and industry practitioners. Separate from what they disclose in their article, there have been allegations that the internal process at the IEEE in changing its patent policy was initially cloaked in secrecy and was not open to all IEEE members as to when meetings were held and as to what the substantive decision-making processes were at these meetings. One commentator referred to it politely as an “opaque decision-making process” by the IEEE. If true, this is very troubling given that this violates the exemption accorded to the IEEE under the antitrust laws for operating as a standards setting organization.

Essentially, the IEEE patent policy was changed in 2015 in two key ways that impacted innovators. First, the new policy prohibits a patent owner seeking an injunction until all efforts at obtaining a license fee have been exhausted, including suing and litigating to a final judicial decision awarding a reasonable royalty. This of course incentives purported licensors to drag out licensing negotiations while they are infringing the patent, imposing large costs on patent owners in having to file lawsuits and pursue their legal remedies in court for many years and who have no choice but to allow the unauthorized use of their property during this time.

Extending these negotiations then allows licensors to take advantage of the second major rule change by the IEEE in its patent policy: the policy shifts licensing rates from the longstanding, market-based licensing of the technology given the value of the consumer device to the component level of the value of the chip itself. Of course, a smartphone without 4G or Wi-Fi is a beautiful 1995 cell phone with a very pretty, colorful screen and nothing more, which is why the free market settled on the value added to the entire smartphone for the basis of the licensing rate for this standardized technology. Moreover, calculating royalty rates based on the very cheap computer chips that contain the valuable technology fails to account for the hundreds of millions of dollars in R&D investments in developing the technology in the first place. Again, this is why the arrangement first reached in the free market between innovators and implementers was a balanced approach in device-level licensing rates that accounted for the costs of R&D and the costs of manufacturing the smartphones that contained the technology derived from this R&D. As a recent empirical study has shown, this is approximately 3.4% per smartphone, which is anything but an example of a massive payment to patent owners on 4G or Wi-Fi, especially for these core technologies that make a cell phone a “smartphone.”

Why then did IEEE change its patent policy? Consistent with the concerns about the “opaque decision-making process” at the IEEE, economist Greg Sidak has identified how the new rules were drafted by an ad hoc committee at the IEEE dominated almost entirely by implementers who license the patented technologies from the innovators who develop and contribute these technologies to the standard-setting process. In effect, the licensees strategically dominated the process and used their clout to push through a policy change that devalued the patented technologies, because they were seeking to lower their own manufacturing costs in implementing this technology in the consumer products and services they manufacture and sell in the marketplace. As evidence, Sidak shows that comments submitted in opposition to the new rules were rejected at nearly double the rate of those in support, reflecting a process that betrayed the IEEE’s core principles of openness, consensus, and the right to appeal. Instead of alleviating any alleged problems caused by patent owners, the IEEE’s rule changes actually facilitated collusion among implementers and resulted in “buyer-side price-fixing” of the patented technologies.

Negative Impact on Contributions of New Technology to Standards at the IEEE

The heart of the Gupta and Effraimidis article is not the theoretical and empirical background to the “patent holdup” dispute, but a detailed empirical study of the impact the new IEEE patent policy has had on the standard development process. Focusing on IP-intensive standards related to the development of Wi-Fi and Ethernet networks, the study first looks into the number of Letters of Assurances (LoAs) submitted to the IEEE in the years before and after the patent policy change took effect.

(LoAs are documents submitted by inventing companies who contribute new technological innovation in the standard-setting process. These technology contributors have patents on these innovations, and in these LoAs, they identify what patents may be essential to the standard that is being developed and they identify the terms under which they’re willing to license this technology if it ends up being incorporated into the standard that is ultimately set by the standard setting organization. An LoA is labeled “positive” if the contributor agrees to license its technology under the patent policy set by the standard setting organization or “negative” if the contributor declines to commit to these terms.)

The Gupta and Effraimidis study found that the number of positive LoA submissions has dropped a whopping 91% since IEEE changed its patent policy in 2015 and the number of negative LoAs rose to an all-time high in 2016. Gupta and Effraimidis explain:

The results suggest that many [patent] owners are reluctant to license their patent portfolio on the new FRAND terms. More importantly, the uncertainty on implementers’ side has increased, as new standards . . . have been approved despite the presence of negative and/or missing LoAs . . . .

Their article also tracks changes in the duration of the comments period that takes place before a new standard is approved—this is the period of time during which IEEE members discuss, debate, and resolve any concerns about a standardized technology before it is ultimately adopted as an official standard by the IEEE. Before the IEEE’s new patent policy went into effect in 2015, the average duration of the first two rounds of comments was 233 days. After the new patent policy took effect, Gupta & Effraimidis found a 42.5% increase in the comment period duration, resulting in an average resolution time of 332 days. This increase by almost half in the standard-setting process, especially in an industry marked by rapid development of new smartphones, laptops, and other high-tech consumer products and services, is concerning, to say the least. These delays are wasting private as well as public resources and impeding the commercial development of important IP-intensive technologies.

Finally, the Gupta and Effraimidis study analyzes the change in the number documents submitted at the IEEE that trigger the development of a new standard technology, which is a proxy for the development of new standards by the IEEE. Here, Gupta and Effraimidis’ findings contradict another recent study that alleged a high number of submissions in 2016 reflected a positive impact of the IEEE’s new patent policy. Gupta and Effraimidis reveal that hundreds of the submissions counted in the prior study either came from standards for which no patented inventions were contributed or were for standards of little or no value. Focusing properly on submissions for technologies that have significant value and produce an overwhelming majority of IEEE standards, they find submissions of new standards documents have in fact declined by 16% since 2015.

In sum, the changes in the internal standard-setting process at the IEEE since it adopted its new patent policy in 2015 represent a concerning shift following a strategic and collusive effort by implementers to devalue the patented technology created by innovators and contributed to standard setting organizations like the IEEE. The evidence is slowly building, showing that the IEEE’s new patent policy has devalued the innovative activity of technological innovators based on a purely theoretical and unproven claim that there is a systemic problem with so-called “patent holdup” in the smartphone and other high-tech industries. Unfortunately, in leaping into action on the basis of unproven theories, the IEEE has contributed to pervasive uncertainty and weakened incentives in the development and commercial implementation of innovative technologies, as is increasingly being documented and discussed by legal scholars and economists.

Moving Forward

The Gupta and Effraimidis study analyzes for the first time empirical data in fully detailing the effects of the IEEE’s new patent policy on the standard setting process. Their study shows that innovators are unwilling to continue to contribute the technologies they develop to the standard setting process under onerous terms requiring them effectively to give up their legal rights to their patents, and that these policies are having a perverse effect in creating inefficient licensing negotiations and delayed standards development. Their findings may sound intuitive to patent lawyers and innovators, but it is imperative to bring data into the public policy debates after ten years of concerted efforts to implement unproven theories, such as “patent holdup” theory, in both law and in the policies of private organizations like IEEE.

Gupta and Effraimidis conclude that a proper patent policy for a standard setting organization like the IEEE “should enhance incentives of technology contributors to innovate, while ensuring unlimited access to the new technology standards.” In considering its key role as a long-time professional association for the high-tech industry reaching back to Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison, as well as its key role as standard setting organization in the innovation economy, the IEEE hopefully will reconsider its patent policy in light of actual economic and legal evidence. It should return back to the balanced patent policy that successfully promoted the computer and mobile revolutions of the past four decades. The future of new and innovative consumer products is at stake, such as the 5G technology that was first being developed many years ago and will start to be introduced into consumer products in the coming year.

Categories
Antitrust Injunctions ITC Patent Law Patent Licensing Patent Theory Remedies Uncategorized

Guest Post by Richard Epstein: The Dangerous Adventurism of the United States Trade Representative – Lifting the Ban against Apple Products Unnecessarily Opens a Can of Worms in Patent Law

The Dangerous Adventurism of the United States Trade Representative:
Lifting the Ban against Apple Products Unnecessarily Opens a Can of Worms in Patent Law

 Richard A. Epstein

In ordinary times, the business of the International Trade Commission does not appear as the lead story in the Wall Street Journal, predicting massive changes in the high-stakes patent battles. But these are not ordinary times, given the ongoing multi-front war between Apple and Samsung, in which each side has accused the other of serious acts of patent infringement. So when the International Trade Commission issued its order excluding Apple’s still popular iPhone 4 and older versions of the iPad, the smart money predicted that the Obama Administration, acting through the United States Trade Representative, would for the first time in 25 years decide to overrule a decision of the ITC, which it pointedly did in a three page letter of August 3, 2012, signed by Ambassador Michael B. G. Froman and addressed to Irving A. Williamson, Chairman of the ITC, whose wings have definitely been clipped.

Injunctions, Damages, or Something in Between

Properly understood, that letter should be regarded as a patent bombshell whose significance goes far beyond the individual case. The choice of remedy in patent disputes has been, at least since the much-cited 2006 Supreme Court decision in eBay v. MercExchange, one of the central issues in patent law. In the academic literature there has been an extensive debate as to whether various forms of injunctive relief should be allowed as a matter of course, or whether the court should place great weight on so-called public interest factors that many modern patent lawyers claim should displace a remedy which under prior legal practice had been awarded largely “as a matter of course.”

That last phrase is not intended to indicate that blanket injunctions should be awarded in any and all cases. Instead, by analogy to traditional equitable principles as applied in various other contexts, including ordinary nuisance cases, the basic principle is subject to some important qualifications that do not undermine the force of the basic rule. First, any patentee may forfeit in whole or in part the right to an injunction by improper conduct on his own part: taking undue delay with respect to enforcement could lead to a loss in some cases of injunctive relief. But the application of this doctrine is within the control of the patentee, who can preserve his rights by promptly asserting them, which means that this issue almost never comes into play with valuable patents that are consistently asserted. Second, traditional doctrine allows a court to delay the enforcement of an injunction to allow the infringer to fix his device, and perhaps even deny the injunction in those cases where a complex device contains many patented components, of which only one is in violation.

The Magic of Section 337 in FRAND Cases

The decision of the Trade Representative did not point to any such complications in the case justifying a departure from the usual remedy of an injunction. Indeed the ITC order was not lightly entered into, for it was agreed by all commissioners that Apple had indeed infringed the Samsung patents in ways that would have resulted in extensive damage awards if the case had been tried in a federal court. The ITC does not have statutory powers to award damages, so the Commission thought, perhaps mistakenly, that it was bound to make an all-or-nothing choice: allow or exclude the importation of the infringing device. Under the applicable statutory provisions of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the ITC is supposed to take into account a number of “public interest factors” that address “the effect of such [exclusion or order] upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States consumers . . .”

The language in this section is quite broad on its face, and if it were applied in a literal fashion, the history of proceedings before the ITC should be replete with decisions that let infringing products into the United   States. The words “public health and welfare” are in modern American English broad enough to allow foreign pharmaceuticals into the United States even if they infringe key pharmaceutical patents. Any mysterious reference to competitive principles would again seem to invite a wide-ranging inquiry that could easily turn this provision of the Tariff Act into an open sesame for infringing products. The 25-year gap between decisions allowing importation of infringing products makes it quite clear that this provision has never been read to invite the broad type of “facts and circumstances inquiry” that the Trade Representative invoked to decide whether to grant or deny injunctive relief.

Against this background, it is critical to note that the dispute in this case boiled down to the question of the scope of Samsung to license its key patent on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory, or FRAND terms, to all comers including Apple. In ordinary cases, no owner of property is required to license or sell its property to a competitor. But for hundreds of years, common carriers have by virtue of their monopoly power been under an obligation to take all passengers on fair and reasonable terms. The thumbnail sketch for this position runs as follows. The obligation to do business on these terms is an offset to the dangers of monopoly power. The prohibition against discrimination is intended to make sure that the common carrier does not duck its obligation by offering its products only at prices so high that it is confident that no passenger will pay them. The concern with nondiscrimination is intended to make sure that the firm does not play favorites among potential customers to whom it can supply the essential service at roughly identical cost.

The carryover of FRAND obligations to the patent space arises only in connection with what are termed “standard-essential patents,” which are those patents that cover an invention that is incorporated in an industry standard that all parties must use in order to market and deploy their own products. The FRAND obligation requires parties to enter into negotiations to make sure that all market participants have a fair shot, so that the owner of the essential patent cannot hold out against a potential user.

In dealing with this issue, the Trade Representative took the position that a White House Report from January 2013 dealing with standard-essential patents revealed the manifest risk of holdout that could take place in these contexts, and recommended a fact-specific inquiry be made into each dispute to determine whether the action of the patent holder was unreasonable under the circumstances. The Trade Representative then extended his discretion further into this situation by insisting that “reverse holdouts” (i.e. those by a potential licensee) should be subject to a similar analysis.

How the Trade Representative Overreaches

It would be foolish to respond to the position of the Trade Representative by saying that there is no holdout risk at stake whenever a party has monopoly power. But there is a vast disagreement over the proper institutional arrangements to deal with these FRAND obligations. The implicit subtext of the Trade Representative’s Report is that holdout is a major risk in these settings that requires some heavy lifting to combat, not only before the ITC, but also in ordinary patent disputes. Just that position was taken by Commissioner Dean Pinkert in dissent below, who relied on some recent work by the well-known Professors Mark Lemley of Stanford and Carl Shapiro of Berkeley, who have proposed major intervention in a form of “final offer baseball arbitration,” whereby the arbitrator chooses between the royalty rates proposed by the two parties.

The obvious point is that this baseball form of arbitration seems ill-suited to determine the complex set of terms that are normally found in any complex licensing agreement. Why propose something that no one has ever used in the voluntary market? But put that point aside, and address the prior question of whether any compulsory remedy is needed to deal with the asserted holdout problem at all. The issue is one to which I have some exposure because I have worked on this question as a legal consultant with Qualcomm. On the strength of that work, and other work of my own on the biomedical anticommons, coauthored with Bruce Kuhlik (now general counsel at Merck), I have concluded that the frequency and severity of this problem is in fact far less than asserted by the overwrought statements of those who advance this theory. In work that I did with Scott Kieff and Dan Spulber, we reported that Qualcomm was a member of some 84 standard organizations and reported few if any problems in working through the details with any of them. Indeed, apart from the citation of a few cases that dealt with tangential issues, there is nothing in the Lemley and Shapiro paper that indicates that this problem has serious dimensions.

The question then arises why this might be so, and the answer is a collection of factors, none of which is decisive but all of which are to some degree relevant. The process of standard-setting does not take place in a vacuum, but involves repeat play by individual firms, all of whom know that coordination is key to their mutual success. The common pattern of standard-setting involves having technical people coming up with a sound technical solution before worrying about who holds what patent position. Standard-setting organizations then require their participants to disclose patents that read onto the standard. These organizations typically revisit standards as circumstances and technology change, which creates a subtle threat for patentees that the standard may migrate away from their patented technology if the patentee’s license terms become too risky. The threat of retaliation is real as well, and all parties know that if they hold up a standard they not only hurt their competitors but also themselves. The process may not look pretty, but in the hands of experienced professionals, the evidence is that it works well.

The choice in question here thus boils down to whether the low rate of voluntary failure justifies the introduction of an expensive and error-filled judicial process that gives all parties the incentive to posture before a public agency that has more business than it can possibly handle. It is on this matter critical to remember that all standards issues are not the same as this particularly nasty, high-stake dispute between two behemoths whose vital interests make this a highly atypical standard-setting dispute. Yet at no point in the Trade Representative’s report is there any mention of how this mega-dispute might be an outlier. Indeed, without so much as a single reference to its own limited institutional role, the decision uses a short three-page document to set out a dogmatic position on issues on which there is, as I have argued elsewhere, good reason to be suspicious of the overwrought claims of the White House on a point that is, to say the least, fraught with political intrigue

Ironically, there was, moreover a way to write this opinion that could have narrowed the dispute and exposed for public deliberation a point that does require serious consideration. The thoughtful dissenting opinion of Commissioner Pinkert pointed the way. Commissioner Pinkert contended that the key factor weighing against granting Samsung an exclusion order is that Samsung in its FRAND negotiations demanded from Apple rights to use certain non standard-essential patents as part of the overall deal. In this view, the introduction of nonprice terms on nonstandard patterns represents an abuse of the FRAND standard. Assume for the moment that this contention is indeed correct, and the magnitude of the problem is cut a hundred or a thousand fold. This particular objection is easy to police and companies will know that they cannot introduce collateral matters into their negotiations over standards, at which point the massive and pointless overkill of the Trade Representative’s order is largely eliminated. No longer do we have to treat as gospel truth the highly dubious assertions about the behavior of key parties to standard-setting disputes.

But is Pinkert correct? On the one side, it is possible to invoke a monopoly leverage theory similar to that used in some tie-in cases to block this extension. But those theories are themselves tricky to apply, and the counter argument could well be that the addition of new terms expands the bargaining space and thus increases the likelihood of an agreement. To answer that question to my mind requires some close attention to the actual and customary dynamics of these negotiations, which could easily vary across different standards. I would want to reserve judgment on a question this complex, and I think that the Trade Representative would have done everyone a great service if he had addressed the hard question. But what we have instead is a grand political overgeneralization that reflects a simple-minded and erroneous view of current practices.

The enormous technical advances in all these fields are not consistent with the claim that holdout problems have brought an industry to a standstill. The brave new world of discretionary remedies could easily backfire and undermine cooperative behavior by rewarding those who refuse to cooperate. If the critics of the current system focused on that one background fact, they might well be more diffident about pushing vast industries into uncharted territories on their regrettable overconfidence in their own untested judgments.

Richard A. Epstein is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at New York University School of Law, the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, and the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law Emeritus and Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. He is currently consulting with QUALCOMM on the issues at stake in this case.