Race to publish rival SEP & FRAND Codes of Conduct: new CEN-CENELEC working groups established

In October last year we reported on the difficulties that the Commission was facing in drafting its Communication on SEPs, in particular relating to the issues of use-based licensing or chipset licensing (see here).  We also noted that certain industry participants, such as Nokia and Ericsson, had confirmed their intention to establish an industry-wide code on best practices for SEP licensing.

In the subsequent months there have been some significant developments. The Commission’s Communication has been published (here, analysed in an article we wrote for the CIPA Journal here), although there was a notable absence of any specific reference to use-based or chipset licensing. The Nokia-backed proposal for a Code of Conduct has also crystallised into the form of a CEN-CENELEC workshop that kicked off in October 2017 (WS-SEP). 

Perhaps alive to the risk of that workshop producing a Code of Conduct that favoured SEP holders, a rival CEN-CENELEC workshop was set up by ACT (The App Association) and the FSA (Fair Standards Alliance) in February 2018 (WS-SEP2). Although slower off the mark, this second workshop is operating to a faster timetable; both workshops aim to produce a final text of their Code of Conduct by June 2018.

The detailed project plans for each workshop reveal exactly the sorts of differences in approach that one might expect. Both workshops intend their participants to discuss a range of FRAND issues in order to identify best practices from which a Code of Conduct can be developed. However, there are some clear differences in emphasis from each workshop.

WS-SEP focuses on the goal of concluding licence agreements and resolving licensing disputes quickly and efficiently. As part of this, it proposes the establishment of an ‘IoT SEP Licensing Gateway’, describing this as a “process and structure to engage in licensing discussions and resolution in a streamlined or more systematic way”.

On the other hand, WS-SEP2 envisages a broader range of topics being covered, making specific reference to the issues of patent hold-up and licensing without mandatory bundling on a portfolio only basis.

The differences in approach are perhaps most clearly seen in the sections of each workshops’ project plan which deal with what we have previously described as use-based and chipset licensing (here) – topical issues that the Commission did not address directly in its SEP Communication. 

Both workshops recognise the importance of developing guidance on the value of a standardised technology. However, while WS-SEP2 states that “a patent owner cannot seek to exaggerate the value of its patent by focusing on value created by downstream innovators and devices”, WS-SEP warns that “the price of a car does not reflect the value of connectivity in a car, equally the price of a chip may not reflect the value that connectivity, enabled by a chip brings to an end product”.

And though WS-SEP2 intends its guidance to cover “[t]he long history of FRAND licensing at all levels of the supply chain”, by contrast, WS-SEP takes a much narrower approach, proposing discussion on “[t]he appropriate licensing points to efficiently provide access-for-all”. 

The Commission’s decision to avoid taking a stance on either of these issues in its Communication, the value at stake in the light of the IoT and the impact that use-based and chipset licensing could have on royalties paid in new licences meant that these areas were always likely to become a battleground.  

We will be very interested to see the final products of both workshops. However, if the end result is two conflicting Codes of Conduct, they may have little impact on resolving the most contentious FRAND issues. 

Depression delayed: CMA’s paroxetine pay-for-delay case heads to Luxembourg

On 8 March 2018, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) gave an initial judgment (see here) in the appeals brought by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and a number of generic manufacturers against the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) 2016 Paroxetine decision (see here and here).   As explained further below, the CAT has (in a move which perhaps goes against the prevailing zeitgeist) not reached final conclusions on the appeals, but has rather referred a number of questions to the Court of Justice in Luxembourg.


The infringements identified by the CMA in its Paroxetine decision arose out of three patent settlement agreements made in 2001 and 2002 between GSK and various generic manufacturers of paroxetine.  

Paroxetine is an anti-depressant (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor “SSRI”), marketed by GSK under the brand name “Seroxat”, which during the infringement period was one of its highest selling products, accounting for £71.6 million (10% of revenue) in 2001.

The CMA’s investigation into paroxetine was the first UK case to grapple with the contentious area of patent settlement agreements which limit generic companies’ ability to bring their own product to market.  The investigation was formally launched by the OFT in 2011 on the basis of information obtained by the European Commission through its pharmaceutical sector inquiry (2009). 

Following a significant further period of investigation, the CMA in 2016 issued a decision fining GSK, Alpharma and Generics (UK) a total of £44.99 million for agreeing to delay the entry of generic paroxetine in breach of Chapter I and/or Article 101 TFEU.  GSK received the largest penalty, being fined £37,606,275 for its parallel infringement of the Chapter II prohibition:

  • The CMA found that between 2001 and 2004 GSK agreed to make payments and other value transfers of over £50 million to generic suppliers of paroxetine; this amounted to a restriction of competition by object and/or effect. 

  • The CMA also found that GSK’s conduct induced generic providers to delay their efforts to independently enter the UK paroxetine market, abusing its dominant position in breach of Chapter II of the Competition Act.

The CAT Judgment 

The essential element of the CAT’s March 2018 judgment is the reference of five issues to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.  As things stand, the exact text of the questions has not been formulated (and will no doubt be the subject of fierce debate among the parties).  However, the issues referred will relate to the following areas: 

  1. Potential competition: whether the existence of an interim injunction against generic manufacturers was an insurmountable barrier for entering the market.

    The provisional view of the Tribunal was to find that it was not (since, for example, it could have been discharged). However, it decided to refer a question to the CJEU as the question was similar to one raised in Lundbeck’s appeal (see here). This reference raises issues not dissimilar to those at play in the recent Roche judgment of the CJEU, which considered whether potentially unlawful products could be viewed as potential competitors (see here).

  2. Restriction of competition by object: when the strength of a patent is uncertain, does a transfer of value from the originator to a generic of an amount substantially greater than avoided litigation costs, under a settlement agreement in which the generic company agrees not to enter the market with its generic product and not to challenge the originator’s patent, constitute a restriction by object?

    The CAT emphasised a number of points in connection with this question, including a notable recognition that (a) the uncertainty over patent strength means that a possible outcome of the litigation was that the generic challengers would be held to infringe a valid patent; and (b) an outcome of litigation which upheld the patent should not be viewed as a less competitive outcome than the situation where the patent was overturned.

    A second related question was also identified, which seeks to establish whether a settlement comprising a value transfer which also provides some benefits to consumers (in the form of limited supplies of authorised generic products) should also be viewed as restrictive by object. Again, the preliminary view of the Tribunal was that such limited competitive benefits are not sufficient to draw into question the overall categorisation of the agreement as a by object infringement. If that is correct, it is necessarily a conclusion which will have to be considered in detail for any specific patent settlement agreement, and suggests that a blanket ‘by object’ approach will not be warranted.

  3. Restrictions by effect: in order to show a restriction by effect is it necessary to establish that the counterfactual would have been more competitive? The Appellants argued that the CMA’s Decision did not sufficiently consider the potentially pro-competitive effects of GSK’s agreements with generic manufacturers, for example the savings to the NHS compared to the situation where no authorised generics were on the market.

    The CAT also started to grapple with an issue which has been underplayed in the European decisions to date, namely the relevance of the outcome of the underlying patent litigation. If one realistic outcome of that litigation was success for GSK, the approach proposed by the CMA would be to reduce the test for identifying effects to “the probability of a possibility”. On the other hand, the CAT did not seem to acknowledge the risk of creating a situation where an agreement is considered restrictive of competition by object yet does not possess the requisite degree of probability for an effects finding that is not made out. This is surely an issue that will have to be fully played out before this, and similar cases, are finally resolved. (Damages litigation in relation to patent settlement agreements is likely to bring this issue to the fore, even if the CJEU elects to side-step the question.)

  4. The correct approach to defining the relevant product market: is the relevant product market paroxetine or all SSRIs? While the Tribunal supported the CMA’s finding of dominance on the basis of a market limited to paroxetine, it criticised its reasoning. It considered the CMA to have taken an overly narrow approach to market definition, based on the impact of generic entry on the price of paroxetine - following the Commission’s ‘natural events’ approach used in its AstraZeneca Decision (2005) (see here). However, the CAT supported the view that from the time when there were potential generic entrants, the market was limited to paroxetine and its generics. It recognised that this preliminary view, which suggests a significant change in the relevant market over time (despite no suggestion that the view of prescribing professionals was subject to a similar change) was a departure from existing case law. In the authors’ view, this approach will lead to legal uncertainty and, more importantly, inappropriately substitutes an analysis based on perceived competitive constraints for an assessment based principally on objective demand factors. As the CAT itself notes, this approach would suggest successful drugs will almost always be found to constitute a distinct market at least from the time when generic entry becomes likely. As the Tribunal notes, this approach would amount to a material change to the “IP bargain” which “might adversely affect the economic purpose of patent legislation”.

    Nevertheless, in making the reference on this point, the CAT has flagged some significant issues which should weigh in the CJEU’s eventual analysis.

  5. Abuse: are potential benefits to the NHS relevant to the assessment of whether GSK had abused a dominant position by entering into the agreements?

    The final question on abuse is limited to an allusion back to the questions referred in relation to the object and effect of anti-competitive agreements. The central issue is again the question of whether the limited pro-competitive benefits derived from the presence of the generic companies as distributors of an authorised generic product are sufficient to undermine the main finding as anti-competitive effects.

Although the judgment is provisional in nature, there is much to absorb. We will report further when the agreed text of the questions to be referred has been published.

The BKA’s Facebook investigation: new frontier or regulatory overreach?

At the end of 2017, the German competition authority (BKA) provisionally concluded that certain Facebook polices in relation to users’ data are an abuse of its dominant position in the German market for social networks.  It published an accompanying position paper

The BKA’s provisional dominance finding takes into account Facebook’s 30 million monthly users in Germany (with 23 million using Facebook on a daily basis), as well as the allegedly high barriers to entry for new social networking platforms (a point to which we return below).  

It considers the terms and conditions Facebook imposes on its users to be abusive, requiring them to choose between accepting “the whole Facebook package”, including an extensive disclosure of personal data, or not using Facebook at all. 
Specifically, the BKA takes issue with the requirement for users to accept Facebook’s right to collect data from third party websites: data which is made available to Facebook by operators that have embedded the Facebook ‘like’ or ‘login’ options.  Data is collected by Facebook even where users do not click on such options, and is then associated with the user’s Facebook account.  According to Cliqz, Facebook’s reach may stretch to over 25% of all websites. 

The BKA considers that users could not meaningfully consent to Facebook’s data processing requirements, as they have no alternative but to consent if they wish to access Facebook’s platform.  The BKA characterises this as "exploitative business terms”. 

As we have previously noted, the investigation is a test case on the interplay between big data, consumer protection and competition law (here and here). But is this investigation an opening salvo in a new frontier for competition enforcement, or more of a modish dalliance with the hipster zeitgeist?

It certainly concerns an unusual alleged form of abuse, since it does not appear to depend in any meaningful sense on Facebook’s dominance (save perhaps in the extent of the data collection).  Nor does it readily seem to fulfil the classical requirement of an abuse which uses “methods different from those governing normal competition [which …] has the effect of hindering the maintenance of the degree of competition existing in the market or the growth of that competition” (Case 85/76, Hoffmann La Roche).

It is not uncommon for investigations which challenge the boundaries of antitrust to be relatively clear about the potential harm to competitors, but much less clear about the harm to consumers or the competitive process.  This case is rather the converse – with its most controversial aspect perhaps being the BKA’s theory of consumer harm, which is based on users’ loss of control of their data: “Facebook offers its service for free.  Its users therefore do not suffer a direct financial loss from the fact that Facebook uses exploitative business terms.  The damage for the users lies in a loss of control: they are no longer able to control how their personal data are used”.  This theory necessarily assumes that users are sufficiently tied into the platform to be unwilling or unable to ‘click away’ and select an alternative messaging service.  Indeed, in Facebook’s public statement about the recent development in the BKA’s investigation, it strongly emphasised its lack of market power, which is both a pre-condition for any abuse finding and in this case is closely tied to the nature of the abuse itself.

The BKA’s position paper seeks to redress this apparent focus on consumers, noting the high economic value of the data gathered by Facebook, and its relevance for targeted advertising which in turn makes Facebook more attractive to advertisers, a concept referred to as “identity-based network effects”.  The interest in online advertising is of course not limited to the BKA, but is an increasingly hot topic in competition policy generally – see for example the ongoing French competition authority sector inquiry (see here and here). 

It is also questionable how the case can be reconciled with the Court of Justice’s more orthodox position in Case 238/05 Asnef-Equifax (here): “any possible issues relating to the sensitivity of personal data are not, as such, a matter for competition law”.  The BKA’s answer will have to be that its investigation does not relate to the sensitivity of personal data “as such”, but rather to Facebook’s use of the data.

In terms of next steps, Facebook can defend its positon and/or offer solutions.  A final decision in expected in the summer.

The competition law issues of the CRISPR patent pool

CRISPR-Cas9 is heralded as a revolutionary gene editing technology that is regularly hitting the headlines for both its scientific promise and fiercely fought patent wars. Our colleagues have written extensively on these aspects (see here and here), but in this blog, we focus on the competition law issues which surround the growing trend for the creation of patent pools in the life sciences sector.

The creation of the CRISPR patent pool was announced last spring by MPEG LA, an organisation well-known for creating patent pools for consumer electronics. Thus far, only the Broad Institute has publically revealed that it has submitted patents for evaluation.

Patent pools can be subject to anti-trust scrutiny. Both the European and US competition authorities have provided guidance on this issue – see section 4.4 of the European Commission’s Technology Transfer Guidelines and section 5.5 of the US DOJ’s IP Licensing Antitrust Guidelines. These guidelines recognise the pro-competitive benefits of patent pools which can help integrate complementary technologies, reduce transaction costs, and limit cumulative royalties. In this case, there appears to be a clear pro-competitive benefit in offering a single licence for CRISPR technology as there currently exists a complex web of relevant patents that is growing by around 100 new patent families each month. 

Having said that, the competition authorities on both sides of the Atlantic also identify a number of competition law risks – namely, the risk of collusion, price fixing or foreclosure of alternative technologies. Indeed, the European Commission has previously investigated a patent pool for non-invasive prenatal testing (see our commentary here). The authorities’ guidance suggests principles which can reduce this risk. In particular, the European Commission suggests that:

  • Participation (as a licensor or licensee) should be open to all.
  • Only complementary technology should be included (inclusion of substitute technology is likely to infringe competition law). 
  • Independent experts should be involved in the creation and operation of the patent pool.
  • Safeguards against the exchange of sensitive information should be in place.

For the CRISPR pool, MPEG LA has made an open call for patents, and will evaluate each patent before it is accepted. Its involvement, as a separate licensing body, should play an important role in safeguarding against the exchange of sensitive information. Looking ahead, MPEG LA may reduce the competition law risk by reviewing the pooled patents regularly, and considering licensing parts of the pool separately. In the life sciences sector, strands of research can head off in entirely new directions such that only half of the pool may remain relevant. 

There are also commercial concerns for the CRISPR pool to overcome. Whilst technology and telecommunications pools are common, life science pools, such as the Golden Rice and Medicines Patent Pool, are rare and often not profit driven. One reason for this may be the prevalence of exclusive patent licensing in the sector, as well as the relative lack of interplay between technologies in traditional small molecule medicines. 

This leaves MPEG LA with a tricky tightrope to walk. Having the Broad Institute on board is a promising start, but UC Berkeley, holding the patent to the underlying technology, must also join for the pool to be commercially successful. Beyond these two key players, the selection of patents to include will require some tricky choices: too few patents and the pool fails to achieve its aim of reducing transaction costs and may deter some investment by potential licensees altogether; too many and patent holders may be concerned about the returns they will achieve, and be wary of making the necessary large investments in further research.

We’ll be looking out for any further developments and will post them to the CLIP Board as and when they occur.

Excessive pricing spreads to Denmark - a cautionary tale about exclusive licensing

Following cases in Italy, the UK and before the European Commission, the Danish authorities have reached an abuse of dominance finding against CD Pharma (CDP). 

CDP was found to have imposed price increases of up to 2,000% on supplies of Syntocinon, without any justification in terms of increased costs. The product, used in connection with childbirth, is long off patent. 

Two points mark this case out from other excessive pricing investigations.

First, this is as much a cautionary tale about exclusive licensing as it is about excessive pricing. In acquiring an exclusive licence to what appears to be a ‘must stock’ product for hospitals CDP acquired a dominant position, leading to the risk of abuse. 

While exclusive licensing between non-competitors generally does not raise competition concerns, it is notable that Commission guidance refers specifically to the justification for exclusive licensing as the bringing of a new product to market. In the case of an old product which does not require further development, the basic justification for the exclusivity appears to be missing. In this case, if competitor Orifarm had been able to approach the manufacturer of Syntocinon rather than having to purchase from CDP as the local distributor, there would have been a greater chance of price competition on the Danish market. 

Second, the Danish authority is alive to the wider (umbrella) harm caused by the pricing strategy which extend beyond the period of direct infringement. The press release refers to the risk of permanent price increases - in particular where products are procured through periodic tender processes. This could be a significant point in any attempt by the Danish authorities to seek damages in  respect of the abuse. 

The chips are down! The Commission fines Qualcomm for abuse of dominance

The Commission has fined Qualcomm €997 million for abuse of dominance. The Commission found that Qualcomm had paid Apple to use only Qualcomm LTE baseband chips in its smartphones and tablet devices (see here) and that this was exclusionary and anti-competitive. 

Commissioner Vestager has said Qualcomm “denied consumers and other companies more choice and innovation – and this in a sector with a huge demand and potential for innovative technologies”, as “no rival could effectively challenge Qualcomm in this market, no matter how good their products were.

LTE baseband chips enable portable devices to connect to mobile networks. The Commission considers Qualcomm to have had a market share of over 90% between 2011 and 2016 (the period of the infringement). 
The Decision centres on an agreement between Qualcomm and Apple in force from 2011 to 2016 under which Qualcomm agreed to make significant payments to Apple. The payments were conditional on Apple not using chips supplied by Qualcomm’s rivals, such as Intel, in Apple’s mobile devices. Equally, Apple would be required to return a large part of Qualcomm’s previous payments if it decided to switch chip suppliers. The Commission also identifies Qualcomm’s IP rights as contributing to the significant barriers to entry in the chip market, reinforcing Qualcomm’s dominance.

The Qualcomm Decision is similar to the Commission’s 2009 Decision to fine Intel €1.06 billion for giving rebates to major customers in return for them exclusively stocking computers with Intel chips – a decision recently remitted by the CJEU to the General Court for further consideration of the ‘as efficient’ competitor analysis (see here and here). 

Applying the CJEU’s reasoning in Intel, Qualcomm sought to justify its rebate arrangements with Apple on the basis of the ‘as efficient competitor test’. However this attempt was rejected by the Commission as there were “serious problems” with Qualcomm’s evidence (see here).

Separately, Apple has also argued that Qualcomm’s dominance may be reinforced by its strategy for licensing its standard essential patents (SEPs) to competing chip manufacturers. Apple is bringing cases against Qualcomm around the world, alleging that it has engaged in “exclusionary tactics and excessive royalties”. In litigation launched in the English Patent Court in 2017, Apple alleges that Qualcomm is unwilling to license its SEPs to competing chip manufacturers, offering only patent non-assert agreements (see here) which could have a foreclosing effect on other chip manufacturers. (We understand that this case is subject to a jurisdiction challenge, due to be heard in the coming months.)

Qualcomm’s patent licensing arrangements are described (by Apple in its pleadings) in the diagram below:

The Qualcomm Decision reiterates the aggressive approach adopted by the Commission to policing rebates given by dominant companies and potential foreclosure effects. Following the Qualcomm Decision, Commissioner Vestager said “[t]he issue for us isn't the rebate itself. We obviously don't object to companies cutting prices. But these rebates can be the price of an exclusive relationship – the price of keeping rivals out of the market and losing the rebate can be the threat that makes that exclusivity stick” (see here). 
As litigation and antitrust clouds swirl around Qualcomm’s business model, in a separate case filed in the Northern District of California in 2017, the US Federal Trade Commission has similarly alleged that Qualcomm is using anti-competitive tactics to maintain its monopoly of baseband chips and has rejected requests for SEP licenses from Intel, Samsung and others (see here and here).

In parallel, competition authorities in China, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan have fined the company a total of $2.6 billion in relation to its SEP licensing policies and pricing (see here).

In summary, while the EU Commission fine is significant, and interesting for competition lawyers as it perhaps suggests that the significance of the Intel CJEU judgment may be more limited than anticipated, it is only part of the overall picture for Qualcomm (and for the sector as a whole). Indeed, even with today’s decision, the Commission has not brought its interest in Qualcomm to an end, as it is still investigating a separate predatory pricing complaint which was filed in 2015.  

The cumulative impact of these legal issues (as well as Qualcomm’s rejection of Broadcom’s takeover bid) may have contributed to a fall in Qualcomm’s share price – although Qualcomm had better news from DG Comp recently when its proposed acquisition of NXP was cleared by Brussels on 18 January (see here and here).

Licensing commitments sufficient for Qualcomm to secure NXP takeover green light

On 18 January 2018 the European Commission approved Qualcomm’s proposed $47 billion acquisition of the Dutch semiconductor manufacturer NXP after an in-depth second phase review. Qualcomm and NXP originally announced the deal on 27 October 2016, notifying it to the European Commission on 28 April 2017. The Commission’s Phase II review was initiated on 9 June 2017, following concerns that the merged entity would have a strong market position in a number of different technologies.

The technologies involved

Qualcomm is particularly known for its baseband chipsets which enable mobile phones to connect to mobile communications networks. NXP focuses on different semiconductors. Most notably, NXP manufactures near-field communication (NFC) chips used to enable a wireless link between two devices at close proximities over which data can be transferred, and secure element (SE) chips. SE chips control interactions between trusted sources: for example, used in combination with NFC, they enable mobile payments between a smart phone and a contactless card machine. 

NXP also developed MIFARE, a leading technology used by several transport authorities across the EEA as a ticketing/fare collection platform. London’s Oyster card transport system is one such use example of the use of MIFARE technology.

Competition concerns and remedies


Both Qualcomm and NXP hold a significant amount of IP related to NFC chips, including standard essential patents (SEPs) and non-essential patents. The Commission was therefore concerned that the increased level of bargaining power of the merged entity would enable it to demand significantly higher royalties in its patent licences. 

To address the Commission’s concerns (and it would appear similar concerns raised by the Korean Fair Trade Commission), Qualcomm offered to carve out NXP’s SEPs and some of its non-essential patents from the transaction. Instead, NXP will transfer these to a third party, who will be required to grant worldwide royalty-free licences to these patents for three years. 

Whilst Qualcomm will still acquire some of NXP’s other non-essential NFC patents, it has committed to grant worldwide royalty-free licences to these patents and not to enforce them against other companies. Interestingly, the Commission’s press release suggests that there is a significant caveat here: this commitment applies “for as long as [Qualcomm] owns these patents”. That implies the possibility of Qualcomm being able to adopt a similar strategy to that of Ericsson in Unwired Planet (see the judgment here and our blog posts here and here) – it could later assign these patents to another entity to monetise under a revenue-sharing agreement.


The Commission considered that the merged entity would have the ability and incentive to degrade the interoperability of Qualcomm’s baseband chips, and NXP’s NFC and SE chips with rivals’ products. This could lead to rival suppliers being marginalised, with smart phone manufacturers choosing only to purchase chips from Qualcomm/NXP.

In order to address this concern, Qualcomm agreed that for the next eight years it would provide the same level of interoperability between its own baseband chips and the NFC and SE chips it acquires from NXP with any corresponding products manufactured by rival companies.


For MIFARE, the Commission was again concerned about royalty levels, concluding that the merged entity would have the ability and incentive to raise royalties and make it more difficult for other suppliers to access MIFARE. It also suggested the merged entity might cease to offer licences to MIFARE altogether.

In response, Qualcomm committed to offer licenses to MIFARE technology and trademarks for an eight-year period, on terms that are at least as advantageous as those available today. The Commission was satisfied that this would enable competitors of the merged entity to continue to compete effectively.

Final thoughts

At the time of writing, the European Commission’s clearance was the eighth of nine mandatory approvals needed, with just China remaining.  

There’s an interesting discrepancy in the length of time the various commitments will run for. Eight years seems to be an extraordinarily long time in an industry driven by continual technological innovations; it also means that rival manufacturers will have some considerable time to think about alternatives to MIFARE and interoperability with Qualcomm chips. 

However, the third party that acquires NXP’s NFC SEP portfolio will be free to begin monetising that portfolio after just three years. Given the increasing use of NFC with contactless payment technologies like Samsung Pay or Apple Pay, and the expansion into other areas such as ‘smart tourism’ (e.g. using NFC tags in art galleries or museums that can show users additional information about an exhibit), there could be plenty of FRAND negotiation/litigation regarding NFC in the future.

It isn’t surprising that the Commission’s concerns centred on licensing royalty rates – this is a complicated, controversial area of law that is still developing. The Commission recently published some guidance on FRAND rates in its SEP Communication (see our blog here) and how royalty rates should be calculated was the key feature of the recent TCL decision in the US (here).

For Qualcomm, currently embroiled in a worldwide dispute with Apple over licences fees for its baseband chips (link), the NXP merger is a sensible move. It will significantly expand what Qualcomm can offer to manufacturers. However, despite regulatory approval being granted, there have been some rumblings of discontent about the value of Qualcomm’s offer (link), and the unsolicited bid by Broadcom to purchase Qualcomm (link) also has the potential to cause some interference with the acquisition. So the Commission’s decision is not quite the end of the story here…

French competition authority fines pharma company for its anti-generic ‘commando’ sales tactics

On 20 December 2017, the French competition authority, the Autorité de la Concurrence (ADLC) announced that it had fined Janssen-Cilag and its parent company Johnson & Johnson €25 million for having delayed the entry and subsequent development of generic alternatives to the drug Durogesic.  The ADLC focused on two distinct types of behaviour:  repeated attempts to persuade the French regulatory body, the Agence française de sécurité sanitaire des produits de santé (AFSSAPS), which were characterised as frivolous and without merit; and a sustained marketing campaign by Janssen-Cilag aimed at undermining the efficacy of the generics before medical practitioners.  

Background.  Durogesic is a powerful opioid analgesic, marketed in France by Janssen-Cilag, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson.  It is prescribed in cases of severe pain, including those suffering from cancer and is administered in the form of a skin patch.

Interventions with medical authorities. Following authorisation in Germany of its generic formulation, Ratiopharm sought to obtain mutual recognition across the European Union to enable distribution of its new medicine.  The European Commission gave its approval in October 2007, requiring member states to comply within 30 days.  However, Janssen-Cilag wrote on several occasions to AFSSAPS, requesting meetings and calling into question both the European Commission’s decision and its legal status in France.  Seeking to argue that the generics were not identical to Durogesic, Janssen-Cilag went so far as to question the efficacy and quality of the generic medicine, despite its bioequivalence having already been established.  Janssen-Cilag also raised potential public health concerns, questioning the impact that substitutions could cause to some patients.  This campaign was successful in delaying entry as AFSSAPS initially refused to recognise the generic drug, with authorisation following only one year later in 2008.

Targeted marketing campaign.  Following authorisation, Janssen-Cilag engaged in a marketing exercise which the ADLC found was aimed at casting aspersions on the efficacy and quality of the generic versions with doctors and pharmacists.  Its sales representatives were told to emphasise that generic alternatives did not have the same composition, nor quantity of active ingredient fentanyl as its Durogesic patch.  This involved Janssen-Cilag training a specialist team of 300 sales representatives known as “commandos” and sending out numerous newsletters direct to medical practitioners, supported by statements in the trade press.  In particular, Janssen-Cilag distorted the warning messages that had been issued by AFSSAPS, providing an incomplete and essentially alarmist message.  The campaign also resulted in screensavers installed on doctors’ computers giving a special warning, complete with warning triangles.  The campaign was so successful that a very low flat-rate reimbursement price was imposed by the French public authorities, fixing the price of the generic and the originator at the same low level.

Impact.  The ADLC considered these practices to be very serious, delaying the entry of the generic in France by several months, whereas the ‘smear’ campaign was successful in ensuring a low penetration rate of the generic alternatives even after their launch.  The ADLC report that 12,800 pharmacies, accounting for just over half of all French pharmacies, were subject to direct discussions.  Janssen-Cilag itself conducted a survey to evaluate the effects of its campaign which concluded that 83% of pharmacists had memorised the risks associated with switching between fentanyl products.  In addition, 12,000 French doctors have the screensaver installed on their computers.

Comment.  This is not the first time that the ADLC has fined pharmaceutical companies for defamatory practices, with both Sanofi-Aventis and Schering-Plough being fined in 2013 for similar activities (see here).  The question of misleading statements about product safety has also recently been addressed at EU level in the context of anti-competitive agreements, with Advocate General Saugmandsgaard concluding that an agreement to present scientific information in a misleading or unbalanced fashion is likely to restrict competition by object (more details here – and watch this space for the CJEU ruling due in a couple of weeks).

Nor is it the first time that Janssen has got into hot water over the marketing of Fentanyl – the marketing of this drug in the Netherlands was central to the European Commission’s 2013 decision in which fines totalling €10.7M were issued (the parties did not appeal this finding).

However, whilst there can be little surprise in the ADLC seeking to sanction the behaviour of Janssen-Cilag in the post-launch phase (particularly given the misleading nature of the communications to medical practitioners), its success in delaying entry onto the market in the first place seems to be as much the fault of AFSSAPS as a consequence of Janssen-Cilag’s regulatory interventions.  The case appears very different from the conduct sanctioned in AstraZeneca, where patent authorities had no reason to doubt the factual information provided.  Although the ADLC refers in this case to ‘legally unjustified’ arguments being presented, it also makes clear that the European Commission’s approval was binding on the French authority, something which should have been clear to AFSSAPS.

Online sales bans in the sports equipment sector: the CMA’s Ping decision

In August last year, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) announced that it had imposed a fine of £1.45 million on Ping Europe Limited (Ping) for breaching the EU and UK competition rules.  The CMA found that Ping had infringed the Chapter 1 prohibition of the Competition Act 1998 and Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) by entering into agreements with two UK retailers which banned the sale of its golf clubs online.  The CMA chose to apply Rule 10(2) of its procedural rules and addressed the decision only to Ping.  A non-confidential version of the decision was published in December 2017, revealing the UK competition authority’s detailed reasoning for the first time.  

Background. Ping is a manufacturer of golf clubs, golf accessories and clothing.  It operates a selective distribution system in the UK, supplying only retailers which meet certain qualitative criteria. Ping considered that ‘dynamic face-to-face custom fitting’1 was the best way to enhance golf-club choice and quality for consumers, and that such custom fitting could not take place over the internet.  As a result, Ping instigated an ‘internet policy’ which banned its authorised retailers from selling any of its golf clubs online.

The CMA’s competition assessment.  Relying on the CJEU’s judgment in Pierre Fabre, the CMA held Ping’s online sales ban restricted competition ‘by object’.  In the UK authority’s analysis, the ban reduced retailers’ ability to reach customers outside their local geographic areas and to win customers’ business by offering better prices online.  The CMA also relied on Advocate General Wahl’s Opinion in Coty (the CMA’s decision pre-dated the CJEU’s Coty judgment, which we commented on here).  AG Wahl had contrasted the contractual clause at issue in that case (which prevented authorised retailers from selling on third-party online platforms) with more serious restrictions, such as the outright internet sales ban that gave rise to the Pierre Fabre ruling.

Ping had argued that its online sales ban was objectively justified under the competition rules for three main reasons:

  1. The aim of the ban was to promote face-to-face custom fitting, which fosters inter-brand competition by enhancing product quality and consumer choice;
  2. The ban was necessary to protect Ping’s brand image.  Selling non-custom-fitted clubs would result in an inferior product being placed in consumers’ hands, which would damage Ping’s reputation;
  3. The ban enabled Ping to resolve a ‘free rider’ problem by ensuring that authorised retailers had appropriate incentives to invest in custom fitting. It would be commercially unsustainable for retailers to make investments in appropriate facilities if a potential customer could obtain a custom fitting in a bricks-and-mortar store and then buy the clubs online.

Noting that other high-end golf club manufacturers such as Callaway and Titleist did not restrict online sales of custom-fit clubs, the CMA dismissed Ping’s submissions on objective justification.  Whilst the CMA accepted that the promotion of custom fitting was a “genuine commercial aim”, it thought Ping could have achieved this through alternative, less restrictive means.  According to the CMA, the “main alternative” available to Ping was to permit authorised retailers to sell online if they could “demonstrate [their] ability to promote custom fitting in the online sales channel”.2

Ping’s appeal to the CAT.  Ping has appealed against the CMA’s decision.  In its press release responding to the decision, Ping stated: “Our Internet Policy is an important pro-competitive aspect of our long-standing commitment to custom fitting”.  It also argues in its Grounds of Appeal that the CMA was wrong to find that the online sales ban was disproportionate: the CMA’s proposed alternative measures would, in Ping’s view, be impractical and less effective at maximising rates of custom fitting.  The appeal is due to be heard by the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) in May this year.

Comment.  The Ping decision is the latest in a line of recent cases in which suppliers have sought to restrict retailers’ ability to sell products over the internet.  As we noted here, the German Bundeskartellamt has taken a particularly dim view of online sales restrictions in a number of decisions concerning brand owners’ selective distribution systems.  The publication of the Ping decision also comes hot on the heels of the CJEU’s preliminary ruling in the Coty case, in which it was held that manufacturers of luxury goods can, in principle, prevent their authorised retailers from selling via third-party online platforms such as Amazon and eBay, provided that certain conditions are fulfilled (see here).

Also of note was the CMA’s decision to set out in an ‘Alternatives Paper’ its provisional considerations of ‘realistic alternatives’ to achieve the legitimate aims identified by Ping.  Whilst the CMA states that the evidential burden of establishing whether the online sales ban was justified was Ping’s and despite the CMA’s assertion that it was not required to do so, it is interesting that the CMA was willing to engage in its own alternatives assessment.

It remains to be seen what the CAT will make of Ping’s justifications for its online sales ban.  In the meantime, however, the CMA’s decision again highlights the competition law risks of imposing an outright ban on internet sales.  Like other national competition authorities, the CMA has frequently emphasised the importance of the online sales channel in intensifying intra-brand price competition.  As Senior Director for Antitrust Enforcement Ann Pope put it in the CMA’s press release of August 2017: “The internet is an increasingly important distribution channel and retailers’ ability to sell online, and reach as wide a customer base as possible, should not be unduly restricted.


1 Dynamic face-to-face custom fitting generally involves: an initial interview; a static fitting in which the golfer’s basic measurements are taken; the fitter identifying potential club shafts for the golfer; a dynamic fitting, including a swing-test assessment of how the golfer is hitting the ball; purchasing advice; and grip fitting.

2 In particular, Ping could (according to the CMA) require its retailers to display on their websites a prominent notice recommending that customers take advantage of custom fitting; and it could determine that only retailers with an appropriate website providing a range of Ping custom fit club options would satisfy its selective distribution requirements.

USA v. UK – a united approach to FRAND? Comparing the new judgment in TCL v. Ericsson with Unwired Planet v. Huawei

On 21 December 2017, Judge Selna of the US District Court for the Central District of California released a judgment which is likely to be the most significant US FRAND decision yet. In a case brought to end the global dispute between two giants, TCL (the seventh largest manufacturer of mobile phones worldwide) and Ericsson (holder of one of the largest mobile telecommunications SEP portfolios), Judge Selna set a FRAND royalty rate for Ericsson’s 4G, 3G and 2G patents as part of a five year global licence agreement.

The judgment is of comparable length and complexity to last year’s UK Unwired Planet decision (which we discussed here and here). The approach taken by Judge Selna shares a number of similarities with that of Birss J in Unwired Planet, making use of a top-down methodology and comparable licences. However there are also a number of key differences that, if applied in future judgments, could have a significant impact on how FRAND rates are calculated.

Key differences at a glance 


Due to the wealth of detail contained in the TCL judgment, we have picked out just a few key points in this article. For a more detailed analysis, we recommend a post by Professor Contreras (here).

Ericsson’s offers: Judge Selna concluded that Ericsson’s offers were not FRAND, but that (as in Unwired Planet) offering a rate higher than that ultimately determined as FRAND was not a breach of FRAND obligations. Interestingly, Judge Selna also explicitly stated that royalty floors proposed in Ericsson’s offers, aimed at ensuring minimum levels of revenue despite the low prices of TCL’s products, were discriminatory and non-compliant with FRAND. 

Top-down Approach: Both judgments made use of a top-down analysis, but in slightly different ways. In TCL, the focus was on the aggregate royalty burden, established by reference to statements about aggregate rates made by Ericsson and a number of other significant IP holders at around the time the standard was adopted. Whereas Birss J considered such statements to be unenforceable statements of intent, Judge Selna noted the role that they played in ensuring adoption of a particular standard (resulting in global use of LTE rather than WiMax for example), and considered it appropriate to tie the aggregate royalty rate for the standard to those rates. 

Having determined the industry total number of essential patents (a considerably lower number than the total number of declared patents, due to the problem of over-declaration, also considered in detail in Unwired Planet), the Judge then established Ericsson’s share of the total royalty rate.  This was cross-checked with an analysis of comparable licences to ensure a FRAND rate – in principle this was particularly important for 4G, where the ex ante statements pointed to a range of aggregate royalty rates (of between 6 and 10%) – but in practice, it was the 3G top down rate which was adjusted as a result of the comparator licences review. In Unwired Planet the opposite approach was taken, determining a rate using comparable licences, and cross-checking against the implied aggregate royalty. 

Expired Patents: When determining Ericsson’s share of the relevant standards, any of its patents which had expired prior to the date of closing arguments were excluded from its share. However, expired patents were left in the number of total SEPs used as the denominator. The judge argued that removing them would unfairly reward those patentees who still had patents remaining in the standard rather than the public.  While the exclusion of such patents was in part motivated by specific considerations of US law (the prohibition on paying royalties on expired rights), there also appears to be a sound economic basis for ensuring that patentees holding later-expiring patents are not over-rewarded for their rights. This is also arguably in line with the recent Commission Communication on SEPs (discussed here) which suggests that the value of technologies declines over time.

Non-Discrimination: In assessing the non-discrimination aspect of FRAND, both judges agreed that licensors cannot discriminate against similarly situated licensees. Judge Selna looked in some detail at what ‘similarly situated’ means and concluded that the basis for comparison must be all firms reasonably well-established in the world market. This excludes ‘local kings’ – firms that sell most of their products in a single country – but includes industry giants such as Samsung and Apple, despite their greater market share and brand recognition. This approach is good news for licensees whose products retail at lower price points, as it means they should benefit from the same level of rates they do.  Judge Selna explicitly dismissed the relevance of competition law (in this case the US Sherman Act) for this assessment – whereas Birss J. applied Article 102 in determining that – if his primary conclusion about benchmark rates was incorrect – Huawei would still need to show harm to competition resulting from any discrimination between it and other similarly situated licensees. (Coincidentally, the same approach to discrimination has recently been endorsed in the IP – albeit not the SEP – context by Advocate General Wahl in Case C-525/16 MEO – Comunicaçoes e Multimédia.)

Multi-mode: The issue of multimode devices was dealt with differently in the two cases. In Unwired Planet, Birss J computed separate multimode rates based on a set of ratios. In TCL, it was implicit that the rates were single mode, but they appear to apply to multimode products.  Notably, the top-down figures established by the Judge were held to be implicitly multimode rates.

Geographical Regions: Judge Selna considered Ericsson’s patent portfolio strongest in the USA, so applied a discounted rate elsewhere. He divided the world into three regions – USA, Europe and the Rest of the World and established a precise discount rate for each region and each standard. This was clearly a fact-specific exercise, and would depend on the particular; while the Judge indicated that it could have been helpful to break the regions down further, he also noted that any royalty regime should be reasonably straightforward.  
Compare this to Birss J in Unwired Planet where the world was divided into only two regions – major markets (for countries where Unwired Planet held 3 or more patents) and other markets.  One striking similarity between the two judgments was that both treated China (where the licensees in each case manufactured their products) as a floor for global royalties, allowing the licensors to claim rates on all global sales, even if there is no local patent protection.  In the case of the TCL judgment, this meant that for 3G, Ericsson’s lower patent holdings in Europe compared to China led to the Rest of World rate applying in Europe as well.

FRAND Rates: The aggregate patent numbers and final rates as determined in both cases are set out below:

It’s worth noting that once Unwired Planet’s and Ericsson’s respective shares of the total relevant SEPs are taken into account, the rates in TCL are more favourable to the licensee than those in Unwired Planet. The comparison between the cases is all the more interesting, given the provenance of the Unwired Planet portfolio which was drawn from Ericsson’s.  In Birss J’s judgment, the Unwired Planet portfolio was considered to be representative of a subset of Ericsson’s, while Ericsson’s 4G benchmark royalty rate was held to be 0.80%.  Given that Judge Selna calculated total industry patent numbers of close to double those found by Birss J, the fact that the Ericsson per patent rate in TCL was almost half that found in Unwired Planet is mathematically unsurprising, and points to considerable convergence on other parts of the analysis.

While the TCL judgment may be welcomed by implementers, an appeal is to be expected.  Meanwhile the appeal in Unwired Planet is due to come before the English Court of Appeal in May 2018, so there is no doubt there will be further developments in this field in the near future. Whether the outcomes of those appeals will further align both sides of the Atlantic or draw them further apart is something that we will have to wait to find out.