Search Results

ICLE Academic Affiliate Adam Mossoff moderated a Hudson Institute webinar on how the development of new and valuable technologies often spurs misguided arguments that the need to respect patent rights somehow gets in the way of implementing new technologies. Specifically, with the Internet of Things (IoT) expected to reach $650.5 billion USD by the year 2026, the panel explored spurious claims that a growing number of patent rights somehow hinders innovation. Panelists included:

• Bowman Heiden, Director, Center for Intellectual Property, Executive Director, Tusher Center for the Management of Intellectual Capital, UC-Berkeley
• Monica Magnusson, Vice President, IPR Policy at IPR & Licensing, Ericsson
• Richard Varey, Partner, Bird & Bird

Video of the full event is embedded below.

As former judges and government officials, legal academics and economists who are experts in antitrust and intellectual property law, we write to express our support for the Avanci business review letter issued by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice on July 28, 2020 (the “2020 business review letter”). The 2020 business review letter represented a legally sound and evidence-based approach in applying antitrust law to innovative commercial institutions like the Avanci patent pool that facilitate the efficient commercialization of new standardized technologies in the fast-growing mobile telecommunications sector to the benefit of innovators, implementers, and consumers alike.

Read the full letter here.

Interest of Amici Curiae

Amici curiae are seventeen law professors, economists, and former government officials with expertise in antitrust, patent law, and law and economics. Their work has appeared in the American Economic Review, the Journal of Law and Economics, the Yale Law Journal, and the Harvard Law Review, among others, and collectively has been cited more than 16,000 times. As scholars and former public servants, they have an interest in promoting the coherence and development of legal doctrines consonant with sound economic principles and in ensuring that both consumers and the general public benefit from new inventions and technologies. They have no stake in any party nor in the outcome of this proceeding. Amici write to serve the Commission and the public interest by elaborating the legal and economic principles that frame this dispute. The amici and their affiliations are listed in the Appendix.

Introduction

This case presents a complex set of transactions whereby Illumina, Inc. (“Illumina”) created GRAIL, Inc. (“GRAIL”), spun it off while retaining a minority interest, and now has reacquired it. Complaint Counsel seeks to unwind this recent reacquisition. But as Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell’s Initial Decision (“ID”) recognized, vertical mergers are structurally distinct from horizontal mergers. Horizontal mergers carry inherent risks of anti-competitive effect; vertical mergers, by contrast, often offer procompetitive benefits. (See ID 169.) Unwinding this transaction would set a dangerous precedent by deterring innovative companies like Illumina from developing and commercializing new products or, at a minimum, restricting consumers’ access to those products. Antitrust enforcers should be held to a higher burden before risking such market disruptions.

An overbroad presumption against vertical mergers—of the type Complaint Counsel advocates here—is particularly inappropriate in the complicated institutional landscape of biopharmaceutical markets, especially those still in their infancy. Here, for example, it is difficult to predict how the market for Multi-Cancer Early Detection Tests (“MCEDs”) will operate, particularly when true alternatives to GRAIL’s products from other producers are still years away. (See ID 143.) Given the singular importance of capital investment in developing, testing, and commercializing MCEDs, the risks to consumers of blocking such investment are particularly high. Accordingly, courts have refused to enjoin vertical mergers without compelling, concrete evidence that a vertical merger is likely to harm competition to a substantial degree. See, e.g., United States v. AT&T, Inc., 916 F.3d 1029, 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2019). Scholars and courts alike have recognized that the efficiency gains from vertical mergers make it impossible to treat this class of transactions as presumptively anticompetitive. As Judge Chappell acknowledged, challenges to vertical mergers require a more fact-intensive inquiry. (ID 168-69.)

Nor should a company’s self-imposed restraints, such as Illumina’s Open Offer, be discounted in the way that Complaint Counsel advocates. (See Complaint Counsel Br. (“CC Br.”) 35.) The Open Offer is a market fact, not a legal remedy, and implicates Complaint Counsel’s prima facie case. Market participants should be encouraged to structure their operations ex ante to avoid potential anticompetitive effects. When markets are new and incentives are speculative, the Commission should not presume that a company in a vertical merger would breach its contractual obligations, especially when there are clear performance metrics that are easily monitored and enforced by the relevant parties.

The potential costs of preventing vertical mergers are high, as experience in emerging-technology markets amply demonstrates. Given the ultimate benefits to consumers, the Commission should be wary about importing the strong presumptions from horizontal-merger law and upsetting a model of spin-off and reacquisition that offers significant procompetitive benefits to consumers.

Read the full brief here.

Over the past two years, the Federal Trade Commission has suffered a series of stinging defeats in headline matters: the reversal in August 2020 of the district court order in the agency’s lawsuit against Qualcomm; the near-dismissal in June 2021 of one of its lawsuits against Facebook, and, most recently, the rejection in February and September 2022, respectively, by administrative law judges of its lawsuits against Altria and Illumina.

Read the full piece here.

Abstract

Times are changing as our global ecosystem for commercializing innovation helps bring new technologies to market, networks grow, interconnections and transactions become more complex around standards and otherwise, all to enable vast opportunities to improve the human condition, to further competition, and to improve broad access. The policies that governments use to structure their legal systems for intellectual property, especially patents, as well as for competition—or antitrust—continue to have myriad powerful impacts and raise intense debates over challenging questions. This Chapter explores a representative set of debates about policy approaches to patents, to elucidate particular ideas to bear in mind about how adopting a private law, property rights-based approach to patents enables them to better operate as tools for facilitating the commercialization of new technologies in ways that best promote the goals of increasing access while fostering competition and security for a diverse and inclusive society.

Abstract

In The Nature of the Firm, Ronald Coase explains how firms represent a suspension of the market mechanism. The allocation of activities depends on the relative costs of organizing activities within the firm versus direct reliance on the market. Despite Coase’s insight, economists often treat firms as black boxes with respect to innovation. Firms take in resources and produce innovations but why firms are successful at innovation is unspecified. As a result, the factors that enable wealth creation within the black boxes of firms, a key factor in economic progress, are little understood. Firms are not the only source of innovation, however. Economically valuable research also emerges from non-profit universities. They represent an alternative (which we term the “red box”) to research that occurs within firms’ black boxes, an alternative with specific advantages and disadvantages in producing innovations. Using a comprehensive set of patent data, we show that university patenting is largely the result of activity by a tiny subset of U.S. universities, contrary to the Bayh-Dole Act’s promise that it would produce a massive technology transfer from universities to the marketplace.

In this Article, we argue that research in non-profit universities is distinct from research in a for-profit firm. As a result, the process of moving inventions from the university to the market usually occurs through licensing innovations to firms that have a comparative advantage in assessing possible market value of inventions and can risk capital to exploit innovations. Because successful commercialization of the product of research requires entrepreneurship, we use the insights into entrepreneurship of economists Joseph Schumpeter and Israel Kirzner to begin to unpack the red box of university commercialization efforts. This Article examines the practices that have emerged after the Bayh-Dole Act’s grant of intellectual property rights to universities for the results of federally funded research and the many constraints imposed by university structure. It also considers how the differences in the incentive structure with black and red boxes create a role of university research.

A highly competitive economy is characterized by strong, legally respected property rights. A failure to afford legal protection to certain types of property will reduce individual incentives to participate in market transactions, thereby reducing the effectiveness of market competition. As the great economist Armen Alchian put it, “[w]ell-defined and well-protected property rights replace competition by violence with competition by peaceful means.”

Read the full piece here.

Introduction

We thank the European Commission for this opportunity to comment on its call for evidence concerning a new framework for standard-essential patents. The International Center for Law and Economics (ICLE) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research center whose work promotes the use of law & economics methodologies to inform public-policy debates. We believe that intellectually rigorous, data-driven analysis will lead to efficient policy solutions that promote consumer welfare and global economic growth. ICLE’s scholars have written extensively on competition, intellectual property, and consumer-protection policy.

In this comment, we express concerns about the commission’s plan to update the legal framework that underpins standard-essential patent licensing in Europe.

For obvious reasons, the way intellectual property disputes are resolved has tremendous ramifications for firms that operate in standard-reliant industries. Not only do many of the firms in this space derive a large share of their revenue from patents but, perhaps more importantly, the prospect of litigation dictates how firms structure the transfer of intellectual property assets. In simple terms, ineffectual judicial remedies for IP infringements and uncertainty concerning the resolution of IP disputes discourage firms from concluding license agreements in the first place.

The key role that IP plays in these industries should impel policymakers to proceed with caution. By virtually all available metrics, the current system works. The development of innovative technologies through standards development organizations (SDOs) has led to the emergence of some of the most groundbreaking technologies that consumers use today;[1] and recent empirical evidence suggests that many of the alleged ills that have been associated with the overenforcement of intellectual property rights simply fail to materialize in industries that rely on standard-essential patents.[2]

At the same time, “there is no empirical evidence of structural and systematic problems of holdup and royalty stacking affecting standard-essential patent (“SEP”) licensing.”[3] Indeed, “[t]he notion that implementers in such innovation–driven industries are being suffocated by an insurmountable patent royalty stack has turned out to be nothing more than horror fiction.”[4] Yet, without a sound basis, the anti-injunctions approach increasingly espoused by policymakers unnecessarily “adds a layer of additional legal complexity and alters bargaining processes, unduly favoring implementers.”[5]

Licensing negotiations involving complex technologies are legally intricate. It is simply not helpful for a regulatory body to impose a particular vision of licensing negotiations if the goal is more innovation and greater ultimate returns to consumers. Instead, where possible, policy should prefer allowing parties to negotiate at arm’s length and to resolve disputes through courts. In addition to maintaining the sometimes-necessary remedy of injunctive relief against bad-faith implementers, this approach allows courts to explore when injunctive relief is appropriate on a case-by-case basis. Thus, over the course of examining actual cases, courts can refine the standards that determine when an injunctive remedy is inappropriate. Indeed, the very exercise of designing ex ante rules and guidelines to inform F/RAND licensing is antagonistic to optimal policymaking, as judges are far better situated and equipped to make the necessary marginal adjustments to the system.

Against this backdrop, our comments highlight several factors that should counsel the commission to preserve the rules that currently govern SEP-licensing agreements:

For a start, the SEP space is far more complex than many recognize. Critics often assume that collaborative standard development creates significant scope for opportunistic behavior—notably patent holdup. However, the tremendous growth of SEP-reliant industries and market participants’ strong preference for this form of technological development suggest these problems are nowhere near as widespread as many believe.

Second, weakening the protections afforded to SEP holders would have second-order effects that are widely ignored in contemporary policy debates. Weaker SEP protection would notably encourage firms to integrate vertically, rather than to specialize. It would reduce startup companies’ access to capital markets by making it harder to collateralize IP. Curbing existing IP protections would also erode the West’s technological leadership over economies that are heavily reliant on manufacturing and whose policymakers routinely undermine the intellectual property rights of foreign firms.

Finally, critics often overlook the important benefits conferred by existing IP protections. This includes the comparative advantage of injunctions over damages awards, as well as firms’ ability to decide at what level of the value chain royalties will be calculated.

Read the full comments here.

[1] See, e.g., Dirk Auer & Julian Morris, Governing the Patent Commons, 38 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L.J. 294 (2020).

[2] See, e.g., Alexander Galetovic, Stephen Haber & Ross Levine, An Empirical Examination of Patent Holdup, 11 J. COMPETITION & ECON. 549 (2015). This is in keeping with general observations about the dynamic nature of intellectual property protections. See, e.g., RONALD A. CASS & KEITH N. HYLTON, LAWS OF CREATION: PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE WORLD OF IDEAS 42-44 (2013).

[3] Oscar Borgogno & Giuseppe Colangelo, Disentangling the FRAND Conundrum, DEEP-IN Research Paper (Dec. 5, 2019) at 5, available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3498995.

[4] Richard A. Epstein & Kayvan B. Noroozi, Why Incentives for “Patent Holdout” Threaten to Dismantle FRAND, and Why It Matters, 32 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1381, 1411 (2017).

[5] Borgogno & Colangelo, supra note 3, at 5.

 

Abstract

For much of its existence, the academic and policy debate on standards essential patents (SEPs) in mobile telecommunications was driven by the theory of “hold up”— the ability of SEP owners to supposedly extract value well beyond the contribution of their technology to downstream products. This theory of hold up was never empirically validated, and even as a theory, took no account of the non-self-enforcing nature of patents, including SEPs. Injunctive relief for infringement is far from automatic, and litigation is costly and carries asymmetric risks for licensors. In reality, licensors are often able to collect payment only several years after infringement began, may sometimes end up agreeing to rates that are too low to incentivise future investment, and may often be unable to collect payment for all the period of infringement by the implementer. Thus “hold out” by licensees who wish to delay, avoid and reduce payment for their use of SEPs is a potentially greater danger than “hold up.”

If injunctions are difficult to obtain and the eventual remedy for infringement is to take a license and pay damages based on FRAND rates, there is little positive incentive for licensees to take licenses. Instead, it is attractive for licensees to delay and force licensors into litigation. The attractiveness and increasing pervasiveness of such behaviour risks disrupting the “balance” of incentives that is sought by standards development organisations such as the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), which has been responsible for shepherding the development of mobile telecommunications standards. The long-term consequences of disrupting this balance will likely be a diminished rate of future innovation, and the potential replacement of a remarkably successful model of “open innovation” by more closed models.

This paper suggests potential correctives to the holdout problem. The correctives involve the strengthening of injunctive relief regimes, and the recognition by Courts and policy-makers (especially antitrust or competition agencies) that achieving the “balance” sought out by ETSI may require limiting or withdrawing the unlimited availability of FRAND licenses for unwilling licensors. Courts and agencies should recognise that SEP holders are only obliged to be prepared to make FRAND licenses available, but also recognise that licensors are not compelled to conclude FRAND licenses with unwilling licensees. At the very least, Courts that are often asked to determine FRAND rates based on evaluating “comparable licenses” can still take measures that avoid putting unwilling licensees on the same footing as those who willingly negotiated “comparable” licenses.