Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 of 78 Results in SEPs
Scholarship Abstract Competition policy generally prohibits coordination among buyers or sellers, especially coordination on price, price-related inputs, and output. In licensing markets for standard-essential patents (“SEPs”), . . .
Competition policy generally prohibits coordination among buyers or sellers, especially coordination on price, price-related inputs, and output. In licensing markets for standard-essential patents (“SEPs”), it has been periodically proposed that this rule should be relaxed to permit the formation of licensing negotiation groups (“LNGs”), which is expected to reduce transaction costs and the purportedly “excessive” royalties paid to SEP licensors. Based on the economic structure of wireless technology markets, and empirical evidence from over three decades of SEP licensing, this policy intervention is likely to degrade, rather than enhance, competitive conditions in wireless communications and other 5G-enabled markets encompassed by the “Internet of Things.” In the short term, LNGs would most likely result in a redistributive (not an efficiency) effect that shifts economic value from innovators to implementers in the wireless technology supply chain without necessarily passing on cost-savings to consumers. In the medium to longer term, LNGs are liable to impose significant efficiency losses by endangering the viability of licensing-based monetization models that have funded continuous R&D investment, promoted broad dissemination of technology inputs, facilitated robust entry in device production, and enabled transformative business models across a wide range of industries. While LNGs may reduce the transaction costs of SEP licensing, pooling structures have a demonstrated record of having achieved the same objective in patent-intensive information technology markets at a substantially lower risk of competitive harm.
TOTM Responding to a new draft policy statement from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the U.S. Department . . .
Responding to a new draft policy statement from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (DOJ) regarding remedies for infringement of standard-essential patents (SEPs), a group of 19 distinguished law, economics, and business scholars convened by the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) submitted comments arguing that the guidance would improperly tilt the balance of power between implementers and inventors, and could undermine incentives for innovation.
Read the full piece here.
Regulatory Comments Comments of Scholars of Law, Economics, and Business Draft USPTO, NIST, & DOJ Policy Statement on Licensing Negotiations and Remedies for Standard-Essential Patents Subject to . . .
We are scholars of law, economics, and business who work in areas related to intellectual property, antitrust, strategy, and innovation. We write to express our concerns with the December 6, 2021, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (DOJ) draft statement on remedies for the infringement of standard-essential patents (SEPs) (“Draft Policy Statement”).[1] This statement would effectively repudiate guidance published by these same agencies in 2019.[2]
While the Draft Policy Statement may seem even-handed at first sight, its implementation would have far-reaching consequences that would significantly tilt the balance of power in SEP-reliant industries, in favor of implementers and to the detriment of inventors. In turn, this imbalance is liable to harm consumers through reduced innovation, resulting from higher contract-enforcement costs and lower returns to groundbreaking innovations. And by making it harder for U.S. tech firms to enforce their intellectual property (IP) rights against foreign companies, the Draft Policy Statement threatens to erode America’s tech-sector leadership.
Read the full comments here.
[1] U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Draft Policy Statement on Licensing Negotiations and Remedies for Standard-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments (Dec. 6, 2021), available at https://www.justice.gov/atr/page/file/1453471/download [hereinafter “Draft Policy Statement”].
[2] U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Policy Statement on Licensing Remedies for Standard-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments (Dec. 19, 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/SEP%20policy%20statement%20signed.pdf.
Regulatory Comments Abstract This comment by 27 law professors, economists and former government officials was submitted to the Department of Justice in response to a call for . . .
This comment by 27 law professors, economists and former government officials was submitted to the Department of Justice in response to a call for comments on a draft policy statement on standard essential patents (SEPs). Although the draft policy statement is right to seek a “balanced, fact-based analysis [that] will facilitate and help to preserve competition and incentives for innovation and continued participation in voluntary, consensus-based standard-setting activity,” the comment identifies how its proposals fail to accomplish this goal. First, the draft policy statement fails to account for the extensive scholarly research and rigorous empirical studies identifying numerous substantive and methodological flaws in the “patent holdup” theory, including its failed predictions of high prices, less innovation, and less market competition; instead, a growing mobile communications marketplace has existed for several decades. Second, the draft policy statement micro-manages the negotiation and litigation process for SEPs, which would make injunctions and exclusion orders at the International Trade Commission a de facto nullity for SEPs. This special rule effectively prohibiting injunctions contradicts repeated court decisions in both the U.S. and Europe concerning the general availability of all patent remedies for SEPs. Ultimately, the draft policy statement incentivizes strategic holdout by implementers and de facto prohibits injunctive relief for ongoing infringement of an SEP by an unwilling licensee. This would harm U.S. innovators facing increasing economic and strategic competition from China. It also threatens U.S. economic leadership and its national security, which contradicts the expressly stated goal of President Joseph Biden’s Executive Order, the progenitor of this draft policy statement, of “preserving America’s role as the world’s leading economy.” Thus, the 27 legal academics, economists, and former government officials urge the agencies to reconsider its draft policy statement on SEPs. The comment includes an Appendix of the literature on the licensing and enforcement of SEPs.
TOTM The leading contribution to sound competition policy made by former Assistant U.S. Attorney General Makan Delrahim was his enunciation of the “New Madison Approach” to . . .
The leading contribution to sound competition policy made by former Assistant U.S. Attorney General Makan Delrahim was his enunciation of the “New Madison Approach” to patent-antitrust enforcement—and, in particular, to the antitrust treatment of standard essential patent licensing (see, for example, here, here, and here). In short (citations omitted)…
Scholarship Abstract Today’s technology standards are the result of an extraordinary amount of innovation, collaboration and competition. These concepts are interrelated and each is enhanced or . . .
Today’s technology standards are the result of an extraordinary amount of innovation, collaboration and competition. These concepts are interrelated and each is enhanced or enabled by intellectual property. Where these three concepts come together in standards development, it is unsurprising that antitrust concerns are also present. Specifically, the interests of contributors, participants, and implementers must be fairly balanced to ensure that the appropriate types and levels of innovation, collaboration, and competition can occur – and that the public will benefit therefrom. It is important that antitrust enforcement involving standards development organizations and owners of standards essential patents recognize the careful balance of these three concepts. If antitrust enforcement elevates one goal – say competition – at the expense of collaboration and innovation, or if one set of actors in the standards development ecosystem – for example, implementers – is preferred over the other actors, there will likely be devastating effects on the standards development ecosystem.
The tension between innovation, collaboration, and competition in the standards development arena, as well as the divergent interests of contributors, participants, and implementers are not new. The two agencies charged with enforcing competition policy in the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (DOJ), have long wrestled with promoting both innovation and competition, as well as understanding how collaboration can enhance these ideas. Although the policies regarding innovation, competition, and collaboration have historically bounced around, when considering standardized technology, both the FTC and DOJ have recently shifted the balance in favor of implementers and acted in ways that created impediments to innovation (and thus ultimately competition and collaboration) in the standards development area. Between 2015 and 2019, however, the viewpoints of these two agencies diverged. The FTC continued to rely on outdated perspectives and theories that have been called into question. In doing so, the FTC has favored implementers over contributors in ways that are harmful to innovation. On the other hand, the DOJ (under Makan Delrahim) recognized that its previously-held viewpoints are obsolete and was actively seeking to reset the balance between competition and innovation, between innovator and implementer. This paper argues that we must look carefully at the underlying policies driving the agencies’ behavior, both the outmoded viewpoints that the FTC is pressing as well as the innovation-positive perspective that has shaped the DOJ’s actions in recent years. By amplifying the modern perspective and focusing on creating the right incentives for the right reasons, future imbalances that harm innovation, collaboration, and competition in the standards world can be avoided.
Scholarship Abstract The New Madison Approach, championed by former Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim, sets forth a framework for understanding how antitrust law, patent law, and . . .
The New Madison Approach, championed by former Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim, sets forth a framework for understanding how antitrust law, patent law, and contract law intersect and interrelate in the field of technology standards. Commentators often conflate these divergent, but complementary, areas of law and seek to substitute one for the other, especially in disputes involving standard essential patents. In doing so, they often arrive at the conclusion that the puzzle is missing some pieces. By recognizing the work that each of these doctrines can and should do, the New Madison Approach solves the puzzle and presents an appealing picture of competition in the innovation age.
TOTM The European Court of Justice issued its long-awaited ruling Dec. 9 in the Groupe Canal+ case. The case centered on licensing agreements in which Paramount Pictures granted . . .
The European Court of Justice issued its long-awaited ruling Dec. 9 in the Groupe Canal+ case. The case centered on licensing agreements in which Paramount Pictures granted absolute territorial exclusivity to several European broadcasters, including Canal+.
TOTM In their original post, Manne and Auer argued that the antitrust argument against Qualcomm’s no license/no chips policy was based on bad economics and bad . . .
In their original post, Manne and Auer argued that the antitrust argument against Qualcomm’s no license/no chips policy was based on bad economics and bad law. They now seem to have abandoned that argument and claim instead – contrary to the extensive factual findings of the district court – that, while Qualcomm threatened to cut off chips, it was a paper tiger that OEMs could, and knew they could, ignore. The implication is that the Ninth Circuit should affirm the district court on the no license/ no chips issue unless it sets aside the court’s fact findings. That seems like agreement with the position of our amicus brief.
