Patents, Standards and Antitrust: An Introduction Mark H. Webbink - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
patents standards and antitrust an introduction
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Patents, Standards and Antitrust: An Introduction Mark H. Webbink - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oct 20, 2023 184 likes •507 views

DUKE LAW C ENTER FOR J UDICIAL S TUDIES Patents, Standards and Antitrust: An Introduction Mark H. Webbink Senior Lecturing Fellow Duke University School of Law PATENT LAW INSTITUTE DUKE LAW C ENTER FOR J UDICIAL S TUDIES Nature of standards,

slide-1
SLIDE 1

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

Patents, Standards and Antitrust: An Introduction

Mark H. Webbink Senior Lecturing Fellow Duke University School of Law

slide-2
SLIDE 2

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

  • Nature of standards, standards

setting organizations, and their intellectual property policies

  • Smartphone wars and some of the

historical disputes

  • Antitrust concerns in standards‐

setting

slide-3
SLIDE 3

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

Standard Approved Model Common Practice Coordination Problem

slide-4
SLIDE 4

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

Set By Consensus Custom Usage Agreement Government Regulation Formal Approval Process

slide-5
SLIDE 5

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

ISO Definition:

A document established by consensus and approved by a recognized body that provides for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context.

slide-6
SLIDE 6

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

A Better Definition?

A common practice, established through government regulation, industry cooperation, market force, consumer use, or formal standard‐ setting, providing a mechanism for broad adoption and providing a common practice to achieve interoperability, public safety, or other beneficial use.

slide-7
SLIDE 7

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

SDO – Standard Developing Organization SSO – Standard Setting Organization

slide-8
SLIDE 8

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

World Standards Cooperation Alliance

slide-9
SLIDE 9

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

World Standards Cooperation alliance

slide-10
SLIDE 10

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

Standard Development Process:

  • Standard Proposed by Sponsor
  • Proposal Approved for Development
  • Working Group Formed
  • Rules and Processes Established
  • Development Task Undertaken (Disclosures)
  • Interim Drafts Developed (Disclosures)
  • Final Draft Developed (Disclosures)
  • Standard Adopted
slide-11
SLIDE 11

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

SDO Participation Concerns:

  • What is it going to cost me?
  • Clear path to implementation
  • Treated fairly, level playing field
slide-12
SLIDE 12

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

Patent Stacking Patent Hold‐up

slide-13
SLIDE 13

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

4 EP X 0.25% royalty rate = 1.0% royalty 46 EP X 0.25% royalty rate = 11.5% royalty

slide-14
SLIDE 14

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

Disclose F/RAND Identify

slide-15
SLIDE 15

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

Disclose F/RAND Identify Essential

slide-16
SLIDE 16

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

In re Dell Computer Corporation

FTC Docket C‐3658, May 20, 1996

slide-17
SLIDE 17

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

OASIS definition of essential claims:

[T]hose claims in any patent or patent application in any jurisdiction in the world that would necessarily be infringed by an implementation of those portions of a particular OASIS Standards Final Deliverable created within the scope of the Technical Committee (TC) charter in effect at the time such deliverable was developed.

slide-18
SLIDE 18

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

OASIS IPR Modes

  • RAND
  • RF on RAND Terms
  • RF on Limited Terms
  • Non‐Assertion
slide-19
SLIDE 19

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

ETSI Licensing Terms

Written irrevocable assurance of willingness to grant irrevocable licenses on FRAND terms.

slide-20
SLIDE 20

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

IEEE Letter of Assurance Disclaimer of enforcement

  • r

FRAND/FRAND‐Zero license available

slide-21
SLIDE 21

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

slide-22
SLIDE 22

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

Contreras/FRAND ‐ Feb. 23, 2013

slide-23
SLIDE 23

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

F/RAND TERMS

Rockwell v. Motorola (1997) Broadcom v. Qualcomm (2007) Ericsson v. Samsung (2007) Zoran v. DTS (2009) Nokia v. Apple (2011) Realtek Semiconductor v. LSI (2012) Apple v. Motorola (2012) Samsung v. Ericsson (2012)

slide-24
SLIDE 24

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

IPR Policy Compliance

Townsend v. Rockwell (1997) Nokia v. Qualcomm (2006) Rembrandt v. Harris (2007) Research in Motion v. Motorola (2008) Wi‐LAN v. Research in Motion (2008) In re Negotiated Data Solutions (2008) HTC Corp. v. IPCom (2010) Multimedia Patent Trust v. Apple (2012) Huawei v. InterDigital (2011) Apple v. Samsung (2013) Microsoft v. Motorola (pending)

slide-25
SLIDE 25

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

Standards Enforcement

In re Google (2013)

slide-26
SLIDE 26

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

DOJ SDO Guidelines:

  • Ex ante disclosure
  • Licensing commitment runs with patent
  • No cross‐licensing of non‐essential

patents

  • Limit injunctive relief
  • Guidelines on what is F/RAND
  • Increased certainty of “essential”
slide-27
SLIDE 27

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

What is F/RAND? What are essential claims? What enforcement measures?

slide-28
SLIDE 28

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

SDO’s must avoid anticompetitive behavior

slide-29
SLIDE 29

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

Antitrust Examples:

  • Price fixing
  • Output restrictions
  • Horizontal division of markets
  • Restrictions on competition
slide-30
SLIDE 30

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

“All truly essential patents for a

successful standard inherently have market power.”

‐ Fiona M. Scott‐Martin

  • Dep. Asst. AG

Antitrust Division U.S. DOJ

slide-31
SLIDE 31

DUKE LAW

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES PATENT LAW INSTITUTE

IEEE Topics to Be Avoided:

  • Pricing of compliant products
  • Profits or profit margins
  • Market share or territories
  • Allocation of customers, markets, …
  • Exclusion through standards
  • Tying
  • Bidding
  • Restricting independence of action