United States: DOJ Shifts Focus From SEP Holders To SEP Implementers And SSOs


For years, there has been robust debate among legal scholars, practitioners, and enforcers over whether and how the antitrust laws should be applied in the context of industry standard setting, and, in particular, with regard to violations of FRAND licensing commitments made by holders of standard-essential patents (SEPs). Historically, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have taken the position that the antitrust laws may reach such violations. However, statements made last week by DOJ senior leadership appear to signal a major shift in enforcement policy at DOJ. AAG Makan Delrahim expressed the view that FRAND violations are better addressed via contract remedies, and indicated that under his watch, the DOJ would focus on potential antitrust violations by SEP licensees and the Standard-Setting Organizations (SSOs) themselves.


Standard setting can be procompetitive. Standards may facilitate interoperability, for example, by allowing a product to interact seamlessly with devices and technologies produced by other manufacturers, and by increasing competition among innovators to be included in the industry standard. The antitrust agencies have long recognized that standards can make "products less costly . . . more valuable to consumers . . . increase innovation, efficiency, and consumer choice; foster public health and safety; and serve as a 'fundamental building block for international trade.'"1

SSOs, however, by their very nature, also create antitrust risk. They are, after all, groups of competitors, among others, agreeing on the technological basis for competition. In practice, they routinely adopt standards incorporating patented technology, thus creating or enhancing market power for the holders of those "Standard Essential Patents." If the adopted standard becomes successful, SEP owners may well be able to garner increased income from license fees, due to much increased sales volumes. As well, they may extract higher license fees than they would have received absent the standard. Especially when done deliberately to extract supra-competitive license fees, this is referred to as patent "hold-up." To address this potential risk, SSO's have typically required any would-be SEP patent holders to agree to make licenses to their patented technology available on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. In recent years, both antitrust agencies have focused on the concerns regarding hold-up.

Antirust Agency Actions on Patent Hold Up

The FTC has taken numerous enforcement actions against violations of FRAND commitments, beginning more than 20 years ago and continuing in several recent cases.2

For example, in January 2013, the FTC published a proposed consent order resolving its complaint that Google-Motorola Mobility had violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by ignoring its obligation to offer FRAND terms to willing licensees and instead seeking injunctions against them. The FTC alleged that this conduct violated Google's FRAND commitments to various SSOs, and asserted that the threat of injunction distorted the negotiating process, undermining the integrity and efficiency of the standard-setting process, raising prices to consumers, and injuring competition.3

More recently, in January 2017, the FTC filed suit against Qualcomm, Inc., alleging that Qualcomm had used anticompetitive means to maintain a monopoly in the supply of baseband processors. One of the FTC's allegations was that Qualcomm used its monopoly in baseband processors to extract non-FRAND rates on SEP patents in cellular standards. Additionally, the FTC alleged that Qualcomm violated its FRAND commitments by refusing to license SEPs to its competitors in the market for baseband processors. The FTC alleged that this conduct violated the Sherman Act and also constituted a "standalone" violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.[[N:Compl. ¶¶ 3, 147, FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 5:17-cv-00220 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2017). Then-Commissioner, now Acting Chairman, Maureen Ohlhausen dissented, arguing that the FTC's legal theory was "flawed" and "lack[ing in] economic and evidentiary support." Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen at 1, In the Matter of Qualcomm, Inc., File No. 141-0199 (Jan. 17, 2017).]] Qualcomm's motion to dismiss was denied on June 17, 2017.

Although the DOJ has not taken antitrust enforcement action against a violator of FRAND commitments, the agency historically has articulated similar policy and enforcement views to the FTC's. For example, last year, former Acting Assistant Attorney General Renata Hesse noted that antitrust was "one of the tools in the toolbox"4 to address potentially anticompetitive conduct in the context of FRAND disputes. According to Hesse the DOJ focused on the potential for competitive harm "when the value of a patent is enhanced by becoming essential to a standard and patent holders seek to exploit that added value when they don't abide [by licensing] commitments they voluntarily make."5 The DOJ, according to Hesse, would "investigate and take appropriate enforcement action on misconduct that ... is likely to harm ... competition under the antitrust laws."6

The DOJ more formally expressed a view on SEP and FRAND issues when it published a business review letter evaluating proposed changes to the policies of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Incorporated (IEEE), an SSO.7The updated IEEE policy would have expressly required SEP holders not to seek injunctive relief against willing licensees, and dictated several factors to be considered in determining an appropriate FRAND rate.

The DOJ concluded that the IEEE provisions would further the "procompetitive goal of providing greater clarity regarding" FRAND commitments, "which could facilitate licensing negotiations, limit patent infringement litigation, and enable parties to reach mutually beneficial bargains that appropriately value patented technology."8 The business review letter was widely considered to be an endorsement of SEP policies designed to limit the potential for patent hold-up, consistent with past DOJ statements and FTC enforcement efforts.

DOJ's Current Position

On November 10, 2017, Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim delivered remarks at the USC Gould School of Law's Center for Transnational Law and Business Conference, which marked a clear shift in the DOJ's position on the antitrust treatment of FRAND violations.

AAG Delrahim indicated his disagreement with prior enforcement actions against SEP holders that sought injunctions and stated that he thought such actions undermined the very foundation of patent rights. He noted his concerns that using antitrust laws in the context of SSO interactions and licensing practices "threatens to disrupt the free-market bargain, which could undermine the process of dynamic innovation itself."9

Moreover, AAG Delrahim noted his view that the antitrust laws, to the extent they are appropriately applied in the SSO context, should focus less on the risk of patent "hold-up" by SEP holders and more on what he considers a serious risk to innovation—patent "hold-out" by SEP implementers. "The hold-out problem arises when implementers threaten to under-invest in the implementation of a standard, or threaten not to take a license at all, until their royalty demands are met." In the view of the AAG, hold-out creates a greater risk than hold-up because "the hold-up and hold-out problem are not symmetric.... The risk of failing to implement a new technology does not fall equally on innovators and implementers. The prospect of hold-out offers implementers a crucial bargaining chip. Unlike the unilateral hold-up problem, implementers can impose this leverage before they make significant investments in new technology."10

In addition, AAG Delrahim endorsed close scrutiny of the conduct of the SSOs themselves. "When implementers act together within a standard-setting organization as the gatekeeper to sales of products including a new technology, they have both the motive and means to impose anticompetitive licensing terms. At the extreme, they can shut down a potential new technology in favor of the status quo, all to the detriment of consumers." To remedy the imbalance he believes existed in prior enforcement—i.e., in the focus on potential hold-up, AAG Delrahim noted that the Antitrust Division will "be skeptical of rules that SSOs impose that appear designed specifically to shift bargaining leverage from IP creators to implementers, or vice versa," including rules for clarifying the meaning of FRAND terms. Going forward, the Antitrust Division "will carefully scrutinize what appears to be cartel-like anticompetitive behavior among SSO participants, either on the innovator or implementer side."11 While his speech briefly acknowledges the continuing potential for antitrust risks on the patent-holder side, they appear to be a clear departure from prior agency policy and enforcement views, and a refutation of the DOJ IEEE Business Review letter.

The AAG's comments expanded on similar themes from Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Andrew Finch earlier the same week. PDAAG Finch noted his view that FRAND violations should not be the subject of antitrust enforcement, but rather were more appropriately redressed through statutory and common law actions by patent implementers. According to PDAAG Finch, it is not Antitrust Division's role "to police and decide whether patent holders are living up to their commitments, or to engage in price regulation and regulate patent royalties."12

Implications For Future Enforcement?

The perspectives of both AAG Delrahim and PDAAG Finch are not new to the debate over how best to navigate the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property. Nor are they without precedent in the agencies - being consistent with views previously expressed by now Acting FTC Chairman Maureen Ohlhausen and Former FTC Commissioner Josh Wright.13 They are notable, however, as a dramatic shift in perspective for DOJ—though it remains to be seen whether these views will translate into specific DOJ enforcement actions or official policy statements, or instead merely lead DOJ largely to cede the field to private litigants.

Even more important, it is not clear whether, or to what extent, the new DOJ leaders' views will be shared by the incoming FTC Commissioners, particularly Joseph Simons, whom President Trump as nominated to be the new FTC Chair. A divergence in enforcement policy between the DOJ and the FTC would likely result in confusion in the standard-setting community and uncertainty among international competition enforcers regarding how US enforcers view the applicable legal standards in the standard-setting arena. Accurately gauging the full impact of these new DOJ policy statements will take some time, but if in fact they do signal a shift in policy, they will likely have a significant impact on standard-setting activities going forward.


1 Dep't of Justice & Fed. Trade Comm'n, Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Competition, 33 (Apr. 2007).

2 E.g., Matter of Dell Computer Corp., 121 F.T.C. 616 (F.T.C. 1996);see also, Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm'n, FTC Issues Complaint Against Rambus, Inc. (June 19, 2002).

3 The FTC majority cited several litigations brought under the Sherman Act as support for the complaint. See Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment, In the Matter of Motorola Mobility LLC and Google Inc., File No. 121-0120, at 4 n.6 (Jan. 3, 2013) (citing Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm, Inc., 501 F.3d 297 (3d Cir. 2007); In re Rambus, Inc., No. 9302, 2006 WL 2330117 (F.T.C. Aug. 2, 2006),rev'd on other grounds, Rambus v. F.T.C., 522 F.3d 456 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Research in Motion, Ltd. v. Motorola, Inc., 644 F. Supp. 2d 788 (N.D. Tex. 2008); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67102 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2012))

4 Jimmy Hoover, FRAND Regime 'Not Working Very Well,' DOJ Official Says, Law360 (Apr. 14, 2015).

5 Ron Lubosco,US Antitrust Agencies Seek To Balance Enforcement With Competition Advocacy, Including In Areas Such As SEPs, DoJ's Hesse Says, MLex (Mar. 16, 2016).

6 Id

7 Letter from Renata B. Hesse, Acting Assistant Attorney General, to Michael A. Lindsay, Dorsey & Whitney LLP (Feb. 2, 2015).

8 Id.

9 Makan Delrahim, Assistant Attorney General., Antitrust, Dep't of Justice, Take it to the Limit: Respecting Innovation Incentives in the Application of Antitrust Law (Nov. 10, 2017).

10 Id.

11 Id.

12 Pallavi Guniganti, US DOJ Official: Antitrust Shouldn't Interfere in SEPs if Other Laws are Available, GCR (Nov. 8, 2017).

13 Douglas Ginsburg, Taylor Owings, & Joshua Wright, Enjoining Injunctions: The Case Against Antitrust Liability for Standard Essential Patent Holders Who Seek Injunctions, The Antitrust Source, Oct. 2014, at 1-7.; Maureen Ohlhausen, Commissioner, Fed. Trade Comm'n, Special Address at the Standards and Patent Conference (Dec. 4, 2013).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Shearman & Sterling LLP
Shearman & Sterling LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Shearman & Sterling LLP
Shearman & Sterling LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions