Standard-essential patent holders and implementers may face uncertainty regarding licensing practices following a May 23 Texas court ruling. In the ruling, a Texas federal judge reached a conclusion different from a recent California court decision—FTC v. Qualcomm—on the question of whether an SEP holder must base its royalty rates on the “smallest salable
On May 21, a California federal judge ruled in favor of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in its suit against Qualcomm in a much-anticipated decision, concluding that Qualcomm violated the FTC Act by maintaining its monopoly position as a modem chip supplier through a number of exclusionary practices, including refusing to license standard essential patents…
On February 15, a Texas federal jury found that Ericsson did not breach its obligation to offer HTC licenses to its standard-essential patents (SEPs) on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. The verdict ended a nearly two-year dispute as to whether FRAND obligations preclude a licensing offer based on end products rather than components. Ericsson succeeded in convincing the jury that its FRAND commitment does not require it to base royalty rates for its SEPs on the value of smartphone chips rather than the phones themselves. The jury verdict suggests that other SEP holders may be able to successfully argue that basing royalty rates on end products rather than components does not violate their FRAND obligations.
Ericsson holds patents that the parties agreed are essential to the 2G, 3G, 4G and WLAN wireless communication standards, and made a commitment to several standard setting organizations to license those SEPs on FRAND terms. HTC makes smartphones that implement Ericsson’s SEPs and brought suit against Ericsson in April 2017, alleging that Ericsson overcharges for its SEPs.
The US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ruled that for the purposes of honoring a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) commitment, a pool member is not required to base royalties for its standard essential patents (SEPs) on the value of components. HTC America Inc. et al. v. Ericsson Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00243-JRG (E.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2019) (Gilstrap, J). According to the court, Ericsson’s commitment to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) does not specify whether it must use the value of components or end-user devices to calculate royalty rates. Thus, there is no ETSI prescribed methodology for calculating the license fee under the FRAND commitment.
Ericsson holds patents that are essential to the 2G, 3G, 4G and WLAN wireless communication standards and made a commitment to ETSI to license those SEPs on FRAND terms. HTC makes smartphones that implement Ericsson’s SEPs and alleged that Ericsson is overcharging for SEP licenses. According to HTC, Ericsson’s FRAND commitment to ETSI requires it to base its royalties on the value of the “smallest salable patent-practicing unit (SSPPU) in the phones.” In October 2018, Ericsson moved for a ruling that its FRAND commitment does not require this method of calculation and allows Ericsson to base its royalties on the value of end-user devices, i.e., smartphones.
In a December 7 speech before the Berkeley-Stanford Advanced Patent Law Institute, the US Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim (AAG Delrahim) announced that the DOJ will withdraw its assent to the 2013 Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary FRAND Commitments (the Policy Statement) and elaborated…
Recently, a federal district court in California granted partial summary judgment for the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in an important intellectual property and antitrust case involving standard essential patents (SEP). The court’s decision requires an SEP holder to license its SEPs for cellular communication standards to all applicants willing to pay a fair, reasonable…
In testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust, Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim from the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and Chairman Joseph Simons from the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) staked out differing interpretations of when antitrust considerations are relevant in standard setting agreements restricted by fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) rates, a rare…
On July 18, 2018, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Scott Gottlieb delivered a speech at The Brookings Institution in Washington, DC, discussing how to bolster competition from biosimilars while maintaining innovation.
The Commissioner noted the absence of true competition among biologics from biosimilar products in the United States, similarly to what the country experienced 30 years ago with respect to generics. The Commissioner said that this situation is caused, in part, by what he views as anticompetitive practices implemented by branded manufacturers, such as:
- Rebating schemes in which drug manufacturers bundle discounts to health insurers and employers across different pharmaceutical products;
- Multi-year contracts granting important rebates to payors, often entered into right before the entry of a biosimilar on the market;
- Volume-based rebates;
- Tying rebates, i.e., when rebates are offered if a product is bought together with a biologic;
- Patent thickets, i.e., when branded manufacturers’ own dense portfolios of overlapping intellectual property rights cover biologics; and
- Bundling biologics with other products, i.e., when a product is sold together with a biologic.
The Federal Circuit held Walker Process Claims without a “substantial” patent issue can be heard outside the Federal Circuit based on the US Supreme Court decision in Gunn v. Minton.
- The tug-of-war between antitrust and intellectual property continued Friday, February 9, with the Federal Circuit transferring a Walker Process claim to the
- Wading into the merging streams of antitrust and patents, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld dismissal of an antitrust suit where a jury verdict in a parallel case found no patent infringement. Cascades Computer Innovation, LLC v. RPX Corp. and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Case No. 16-15782 (9th