Worldwide: Global Overview

Standard essential patents and FRAND licensing

Once again this year, much of the activity at the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property law has revolved around the issue of industry standards. Competition authorities recognise that such standards frequently create efficiencies, but remain concerned about potential risks. There is particular focus on standard essential patents (SEPs) and 'patent hold-up' (ie, the prospect of an SEP-holder successfully demanding higher royalty rates or other more favourable terms after a standard is adopted than it could have demanded credibly before a standard is adopted). Standard-setting organisations (SSOs) routinely attempt to mitigate such risks by requiring that SEP-holders agree to license those patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Failure to meet that obligation has sometimes been deemed a violation of antitrust laws. How to define FRAND and how to assess whether particular licensing terms comply with a FRAND obligation remain a focus of competition authorities and courts around the world.

United States

Starting in November 2017, the leadership of the US Department of Justice's Antitrust Division (DOJ) made a series of statements criticising prior DOJ policy regarding FRAND. Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim has now staked out the position that 'antitrust law should not be used as a tool to police FRAND commitments that patentholders unilaterally make to standard setting organisations'. Further, AAG Delrahim has emphasised that he believes that the standardsetting process has inappropriately shifted bargaining leverage from innovators of SEP technology to implementers of that technology and increased the risk of 'patent hold-out', where an implementer refuses to agree to reasonable licence terms demanded by an SEP-holder. Accordingly, AAG Delrahim has announced his intention to focus DOJ antitrust enforcement less on potential 'patent hold-up' and more on 'patent hold-out' by SEP licensees.

Although the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) leadership have stated publicly that they largely agree with the DOJ's position, the FTC is still concerned with patent hold-up and it continues to litigate its challenge to Qualcomm Inc's SEP-licensing practices. The FTC alleges that Qualcomm has attempted illegally to maintain its monopoly in the sale of baseband processors for mobile handsets by refusing to license its handsets on FRAND terms to all market participants. (On 26 June 2017, the FTC complaint survived a motion to dismiss in US federal court and discovery is now ongoing. There are also a number of private antitrust litigations brought by consumers and customers in the US and in other jurisdictions asserting similar competition law claims against Qualcomm, and Qualcomm has responded with a variety of countersuits.) It remains to be seen what impact this policy difference between the FTC and DOJ will have on enforcement decisions and business conduct going forward.

A federal district court in the Central District of California issued a decision in December 2017 that provided guidance on the narrower question of how to assess a 'fair and reasonable' licence rate under FRAND in TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson Inc. In this case, TCL claimed that Ericsson, a manufacturer and distributor of cellular handsets, failed to offer FRAND terms for its 2G, 3G and 4G cellular technology SEPs. The court agreed and held that the parties should use a 'top-down' approach to value the SEPs. This approach requires evaluating the total value of a standard, calculating the aggregate royalty that a licensee should pay to implement the entire standard, and then estimating the share of that total associated with the particular SEPs at issue. This top-down approach is one of several methods that has been used by other US courts to determine a FRAND rate. Ericsson has appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and that appeal may provide additional clarity on the appropriate method of determining FRAND rates.

In addition, the US FTC has begun a series of public hearings that will extend over several months, addressing evolving business practices, new technologies and international developments that may require adjustment of the FTC's enforcement approach. Among other topics, the FTC hearings are expected to address the role of intellectual property and competition policy in promoting innovation.

European Union

In November 2017, the European Commission (EC) published its own recommendations regarding SEPs, entitled Setting out the EU approach to Standard Essential Patents, which were approved by the Council of the European Union in March 2018. The recommendations offer guidance for SEP-holders, implementers and SSOs on how to operate efficiently in the FRAND environment, but they do not take a position on whether conduct that is inconsistent with the recommendations will violate the competition laws.

However, the EC offered several guideposts for determining whether a licensing rate meets the 'fair and reasonable' prong of FRAND. The value of the SEP licence should (i) be clearly related to the economic value of the patented technology; (ii) take into account the present value added of the patented technology; (iii) be great enough to encourage SEP-holders to contribute their best technology to the standard; and (iv) be assessed in the context of the overall added value of the technology (so as to avoid royalty stacking). The EC also indicated agreement with the widely held view that the non-discrimination prong of FRAND applies to licensing of implementers that are 'similarly situated', and offered its view that inconsistency in licensing regimes across countries would create inefficiency for products traded globally. Finally, the EC suggested that patent pools or other licensing platforms might be superior to FRAND agreements because they often provide 'better scrutiny on essentiality, more clarity on aggregate licensing fees and one-stop-shop solutions'. The EC also provided guidance on how SEP-holders and licensees should conduct themselves in negotiations in light of EU precedent regarding the availability of injunctions for SEP holders. The EC guidance suggests that both parties make concrete, detailed offers and utilise alternative dispute resolution techniques where necessary to reach agreement on licensing terms.

China

In the last two years, China has diverged from the previously established international consensus that SEP-holders cannot usually obtain injunctive relief against a willing licensee. The January 2018 opinion from the Intermediate People's Court of Shenzhen in Huawei Technologies Co Ltd v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd provides another example of a Chinese court enjoining a willing licensee's use of SEPs when the parties could not reach an agreement on the terms of a licence. However, that court not only enjoined Samsung from using Huawei's technology in China but also enjoined Samsung from using the technology worldwide. In issuing the worldwide injunction, the court indicated that it wanted to protect Chinese intellectual property rights both in China and abroad. Samsung has appealed the court's decision in China and successfully challenged Huawei's ability to enforce the injunction in a US court that is currently hearing a similar challenge by Huawei to Samsung's use of the SEPs.

Japan

On 5 June 2018, Japan's Patent Office issued a Guide to Licensing Negotiations involving Standard Essential Patents, outlining the key issues SEP-holders and implementers should consider when negotiating over SEPs. The Guide states that both the negotiation process itself and the terms of the resulting licence must be FRAND-compliant, a position consistent with Japan Fair Trade Commission precedent and case law from other jurisdictions. The Guide describes a 'good faith' negotiation process based on the framework utilised in the EU case Huawei Technologies Co Ltd v ZTE Corp (discussed in Getting the Deal Through – Intellectual Property & Antitrust 2016). The Japan Patent Office does not take a position on whether an SEP-holder may seek an injunction against a willing licensee. The Guide acknowledges, however, the international precedent suggesting that an SEP-holder may seek an injunction against an implementer only if the SEP-holder had negotiated in good faith, the parties failed to reach agreement on terms and the licensee was guilty of bad faith. The Guide also provides a discussion of various potential royalty calculation methods, although it does not provide specific guidance regarding which might be preferred or required under Japanese law.

Korea

The Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) continues its litigation against Qualcomm's licensing practices. The KFTC had previously fined Qualcomm more than US$908.7 million over its refusal to license SEPs to its competitors and what the KFTC deemed to be coercion of customers into unfair licensing agreements. In February 2017, Qualcomm appealed the merits of the KFTC's decision to the Seoul High Court and also sought a stay of the remedial order. In September 2017, the Seoul High Court rejected Qualcomm's request for a stay and in November 2017, the Supreme Court of South Korea affirmed that decision. The merits of the KFTC's remedial order are still being considered by the Seoul High Court.

Taiwan

The Taiwan Fair Trade Commission (TFTC) has now settled its litigation with Qualcomm. It had previously fined Qualcomm approximately US$775 million for violating Taiwan's Fair Trade Act with its refusal to license SEPs to its competitors. Qualcomm appealed that decision to the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court, and in August 2018, the parties agreed to a settlement under which the TFTC revoked its decision and Qualcomm agreed to drop its appeal, pay a fine of approximately US$93 million, invest approximately $700 million in Taiwan over the next five years, and agree to remedial terms to ensure 'good-faith negotiations for the benefit of the licensees and SEP owners' going forward.

Conclusion

The issues found at the intersection of antitrust law and intellectual property rights continue to be actively debated by competition authorities and courts worldwide. SEP and FRAND issues continue to dominate the landscape, and we can expect to see these issues actively litigated for the next few years. This latest edition of Getting the Deal Through – Intellectual Property & Antitrust 2019 summarises recent developments in law and policy affecting these and other areas from jurisdictions around the world.

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.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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