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).

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 


Analysis

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. 

Commission Communication on SEP Licensing – where has the Roadmap led?

Following around a year of lobbying and intensive debate, the Commission has today (29 November 2017) published its Communication on ‘The EU Approach to Standard Essential Patent Licensing’.  

As we reported back in April when the Commission published its initial ‘Roadmap’ for this area, the Communication is intended to address some of the uncertainties in SEP licensing left unresolved following Huawei v ZTE (see e.g. here), and to drive progress for the EU-wide adoption of 5G.  

And as we predicted a couple of months ago, the intensity of the debate surrounding the key issues in SEP licensing means that the Communication is far from overly prescriptive. 

The Communication will take a little while to digest in full, but for now the headline points are:

  • The current declaration system needs modernising to ensure greater transparency about which SEPs are actually essential and – in an era of great patent liquidity – who owns them. A new EU body may become involved in this.  And if this all seems rather aspirational, to be noted that the Commission is aware of the (not inconsiderable) costs implications, and suggests that changes may only be possible prospectively, e.g. for 5G…
  • There remains significant flexibility in how FRAND values are established, but a couple of preferences emerge from the guidance
    • ‘In principle’, FRAND values should not include any value attributable to the inclusion of the technology in the standard.  This is in line with previous statements in the Commission’s Horizontal Guidelines, and diverges from the approach in Unwired Planet, where both parties accepted that some such value could be taken by the patentee (see para 97).  However, where technology “has little market value outside the standard” (hardly an infrequent situation), other techniques may be needed, such as comparisons between types of contribution.
    • Aggregate royalty rates are important, and should be taken into account.  The Commission proposes that FRAND value should reflect the  “present value added” by the SEP, bearing in mind that this can change over time, and that it should not include value attributable to market success of the product.
  • Non-discrimination between similarly situated licensees remains fundamental, and evidence of non-discrimination forms part of the information that SEP holders should provide to licensees.  
  • Chipset licensing remains possible – but is not mandated.  One of the key areas of dispute in industry was whether the FRAND obligation required SEP holders to license all comers, including component manufacturers, or whether they can decide to license end manufacturers (thus giving a higher potential royalty base) to the exclusion of those higher up the value chain.  The report does not come off the fence on this issue, save to say that business models may vary from sector-to-sector.  Cases such as Apple v. Qualcomm will therefore have to continue to fight this issue out from first principles.
  • Use-based licensing is not mandated – but nor is it wholly out of the question.  This is another area of significant dispute in industry, with a deep split between rights holders and potential licensees (see the Fair Standards Alliance’s response to the Communication here…).  The concept behind use-based licensing is that it allows SEP holders to charge different rates for different uses (e.g. compare a smart car, a smartphone and a smart thermostat).   The Communication does conclude that FRAND is not a one-size-fits-all concept, and may differ from sector-to-sector and over time.  However, it also emphasises the need not to discriminate between similarly–situated parties.  
  • Safeguards against the inappropriate use of injunctions are still needed to prevent both exploitation (using threats to extract unfairly high licence terms) and exclusion.  Companion papers giving guidance on ‘certain aspects’ of the IP Enforcement Directive (here) and on ‘A balanced IP enforcement system’ (here) have also been published.
  • The Communication confirms that non-practising entities should be subject to the same rules (including on transparency and injunctions) as other SEP holders.  As with many of the points in this paper, there is no big surprise here.
And overall?  The Communication will be pored over by industry, and – while not binding in any strict legal sense – will no doubt feature in arguments on both sides of the FRAND debate.  There are certainly some common-sense points in here, as well as some regulatory aspiration.  But if this is a roadmap, it is certainly not the end of the road – and we will continue to watch as the debate unfolds in the UK, Europe and beyond.

Apple’s battle with Qualcomm spreads to the UK

On 19 May 2017 Apple issued a major claim against Qualcomm in the English Court. This is part of a widely reported global dispute between the two giants. The English action includes an Article 102 abuse of dominance claim as well as a FRAND licensing claim and was issued just a month after the English Court’s first FRAND valuation in Unwired Planet v Huawei (Bristows’ blog post here and here). The particulars of the claim are now available and make fascinating reading. 

On the FRAND licensing front, Apple seeks a declaration that Qualcomm has breached its obligations to ETSI, by failing to offer a FRAND licence for Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), seeking excessive and non-FRAND royalties. 

As far as competition law and Article 102 is concerned, Apple makes a number of arguments. 

It claims that Qualcomm is abusing its dominant position in the markets for LTE, CDMA and UMTS chipsets by refusing to license its SEPs to competing chipmakers. This means that if a chipset is purchased from a company other than Qualcomm, the purchaser must then obtain a licence from Qualcomm for use of Qualcomm’s standard-essential IP. Apple asserts that Qualcomm’s practices exclude chipset competitors from the market, as well as being in breach of its contractual FRAND obligations.

Apple also complains about various aspects of agreements between itself and Qualcomm. These expired in 2015, and in 2016 Apple began to purchase chipsets from Intel. This has doubtless affected the nature and timing of the litigation.

As mentioned above, Apple contends that Qualcomm’s royalties are excessively high. It then argues that to reduce the effective royalty rate it had to pay, it had no commercial alternative other than to conclude rebate agreements which involved granting Qualcomm exclusivity over Apple’s chipset supply. Apple maintains that one consequence of this arrangement has been to limit the emergence of other chipset manufacturers, who have been precluded from competing for Apple’s custom. Because of Apple’s importance as a purchaser of chipsets this is argued to have foreclosed a significant part of the potential demand. Qualcomm’s practice of forcing customers to take a licence and to agree to exclusionary terms is said to further reinforce the exclusionary effects. 

A particular feature of the rebate agreement which is criticised by Apple is that it was conditional on Apple agreeing not to pursue litigation or governmental complaints that the royalties were ‘non-FRAND’. 

Apple explains that Qualcomm’s royalties are charged in addition to the price of the chipset itself, and are based on the price of the end device being sold by the licensee, rather than on the price of the chipset in which it is argued that all the patented technology is practised. Apple takes the position that in order to be acceptable the royalty should be calculated by reference to the smallest saleable patent practising unit (SSPPU) – in this instance the chipset, rather than the phone. This is said to guard against situations where two phones that use the same Qualcomm technology could incur significantly different royalty obligations for use of the same SEPs based only on their different end sales prices. Those sales prices which differ because of completely different aspects of the phones, such as design or additional functionalities. This issue was not considered by Birss J in Unwired Planet v Huawei. The argument was raised in Vringo v ZTE, but was dropped before trial. 

Apple makes several arguments which are in tension with the recent Unwired Planet v Huawei Judgment. These include: that licensees can be acting in a FRAND manner even though they refuse to take a licence of an entire patent portfolio of declared SEPs, irrespective of validity or essentiality; that the FRAND royalty for an SEP should reflect the intrinsic value of the patent; and that the standard (of which that technology is a part) constitutes value that Qualcomm has not created and which it should not seek to capture through its FRAND licensing. 

Finally, in an attempt to demonstrate that Qualcomm’s royalty is not FRAND, Apple states that Qualcomm holds a quarter of the declared SEPs for the LTE standard and compares Qualcomm’s royalty with the (presumably lower) licence fee it pays other SEP holders, who combined hold one third of the relevant SEPs.

Ultimately, Apple claims that Qualcomm’s undertaking to ETSI is ineffective to constrain its dominance as an SEP owner. This may be a direct response to comments by Birss J in Unwired Planet v Huawei that an SEP holder may not always hold a dominant position, for example, because of the FRAND obligation and the risk that implementers may engage in patent hold-out. 

Conclusion

Developments in this case will be interesting when set against the recent judgment in Unwired Planet v Huawei, in which Birss J considered many of the issues raised by Apple. But Apple also makes arguments that go well beyond the issues considered in that case. For example, Apple’s arguments about exclusionary rebates may be affected by the Intel judgment, due to be handed down by the EU’s Court of Justice on 6 September 2017.  It also sits alongside parallel antitrust litigation in the US, including retaliatory actions by Qualcomm designed to exclude Apple’s handsets from import to the US. How this case, and the global dispute, evolves will be fascinating to follow – and not only for those with an interest in SEP and FRAND issues.

Unwired Planet v Huawei: a new FRAND injunction

Mr Justice Birss has once again broken new legal ground by granting what he has termed a ‘FRAND injunction in Unwired Planet v Huawei.

As a reminder, in April Mr Justice Birss handed down the first UK court decision determining a FRAND royalty rate (see here). A post-judgment hearing took place in May to establish whether or not Huawei should be subject to an injunction in the UK and the issue of permission to appeal.

The FRAND injunction

At the post-judgment hearing, Huawei had argued that the judge should not grant an injunction. As Huawei intended to appeal the decision, it said that it could not enter into the FRAND licence agreement at this stage, in case the Court of Appeal determined that different FRAND terms were appropriate. Huawei claimed that to grant an injunction now would effectively be punishing it for exercising its right to appeal. It also noted that if an injunction was granted, it would last until 2028 (when the patent found valid and infringed in the first patent trial expired), despite the FRAND licence agreement expiring in 2020. Therefore, Huawei would be forced to negotiate a new licence from an extremely weak position – it would automatically be injuncted if terms could not be agreed. 

Huawei requested that the judge accept undertakings in lieu of granting an injunction, offering to: (a) enter into the licence following its appeal, and (b) to comply with the terms of the licence as if it was in effect (including paying royalties) until its appeal was finished.

Mr Justice Birss essentially took the view that the offer of undertakings now was too little, too late. He decided that an injunction should be granted. However, he recognised the risk that this might affect negotiations or disputes about the terms of the licence in later years. To resolve this, he granted a new kind of injunction, which he called a “FRAND injunction”. This would be like a normal injunction, but with the following extra features:

  • A proviso that it would cease to have effect when the defendant enters into a FRAND licence; and
  • Express liberty to return to court to decide whether the injunction should take effect again at the end of the FRAND licence (if it ends before the relevant patents expire, or ceases to have effect for any other reason).
The injunction is to be stayed pending the result of the appeal, on terms that provide for appropriate royalty payments from Huawei to Unwired Planet in the meantime.

Permission to appeal 

Mr Justice Birss granted Huawei permission to appeal on three main issues:

  1. The global licence: including: (i) whether more than one set of terms can be FRAND, (ii) whether a UK only licence was FRAND, (iii) whether the court is able to determine FRAND terms, including rates, for territories other than the UK, and (iv) whether it is appropriate to grant an injunction excluding Huawei from the UK market unless it took a global licence.
  2. Hard-edged non-discrimination: Huawei have permission to appeal the finding that a distortion of competition is required for the non-discrimination aspect of FRAND to apply, but not whether or not there was a distortion of competition in this case.
  3. Huawei v ZTE (Article 102 TFEU): regarding the judge’s findings on abuse of dominance and injunctive relief.
This permits a fairly wide-ranging appeal, especially as regards the competition law elements of the latter two issues. The trial judgment appeared to downplay the importance of competition law in FRAND issues (see here for more information); the appeal may enable a renewed focus on it.

The FRAND licence 

In his main trial judgment, Mr Justice Birss settled the terms of the FRAND licence to be entered into by Unwired Planet and Huawei. This latest judgment annexes a copy of the final form of that licence. Given the shroud of secrecy that usually surrounds such patent licence agreements, this is a unique insight, reflective of the judge’s desire throughout the case to ensure as much transparency as possible.

Transparency is likely to be helpful as the law in this area continues to develop. With the advent of new technologies developed for 5G and the Internet of Things, new companies may need to enter the FRAND licensing field for the first time. Without being able to draw upon any previous experience of negotiating licences in this area, they will be at a disadvantage in negotiations. 

If other judgments follow Mr Justice Birss’ lead and annex copies of any FRAND agreement determined by the court, these would provide useful points of reference for negotiating parties. It might also reduce the requirements for third party disclosure (a costly, time-consuming exercise) in any subsequent litigation. Otherwise, such disclosure will be essential in FRAND cases involving relatively new entrants to the market – they are unlikely to have many licence agreements that can be used by the judge as comparables as part of the process for determining a FRAND rate.

Conclusion

Yet again, Mr Justice Birss provides plenty of food for thought. Assuming that Huawei does go ahead with its appeal, it will be fascinating to see how the Court of Appeal responds to these issues.

Pat Treacy and Matt Hunt



Unwired Planet v Huawei: Is FRAND now a competition law free zone? Not so fast…

It has been two weeks since Mr Justice Birss handed down his latest judgment in Unwired Planet v Huawei (see here for a summary), which is almost long enough to get to grips with the 150 or so pages. There has already been a huge amount of discussion as to what this judgment means in practice and we have even overheard some suggest that, when it comes to FRAND in the future, we can simply ignore competition law altogether. This week we were invited by our friends at the renowned IP law blog, IPKat, to have our say on this. You can check out our thoughts on the IPKat blog here.

Unwired Planet v Huawei: UK High Court determines FRAND licence rate

Mr Justice Birss has just handed down the first decision by a UK court on the ever controversial topic of what constitutes a FRAND royalty rate.  At well over 150 pages, the judgment covers a lot of ground: a lot of ink is likely to be spilled about it over the coming weeks and months.  From what we’ve seen so far, the judge has not been afraid to make findings that will have a considerable impact on licensing negotiations in the TMT sector. 

We’ve summarised the headline conclusions below, but also keep an eye out for future posts in which we’ll analyse some of the judge’s findings and reasoning in more detail.

Background

In March 2014, Unwired Planet (“UP”) sued Huawei, Samsung and Google for the infringement of 6 of its UK patents.  Five of these were standard essential patents (“SEPs”) that UP had acquired from Ericsson.  They related to various telecommunications standards (2G GSM, 3G UMTS, and 4G LTE) for mobile phone technology. 

Five technical trials, numbered A-E, were listed on the validity and infringement of the patents at issue.  These were to be followed by a non-technical trial on competition law and FRAND issues.  UP’s patents were found valid and infringed in both trial A and trial C, but two were held invalid for obviousness in trial B. Trials D and E were then stayed, and as Google and Samsung had settled with UP during the proceedings, this just left Huawei and UP involved in the 7 week non-technical trial, for which judgment has just been given. 

Judgment

There’s a lot to unpack in this judgment, but here is a short list of what we think are the most important findings:

General principles:
  • There is only one set of FRAND terms in a given set of circumstances.  Note the contrast between this and the comments of the Hague District Court in the Netherlands in Archos v Philips (here, in Dutch) which seem to interpret the CJEU decision in Huawei v ZTE as meaning that there can be a range of FRAND rates.
  • Injunctive relief is available if an implementer refuses to take a FRAND licence determined by the court. Mr Justice Birss indicated that an injunction would be granted against Huawei at a post-judgment hearing in a few weeks’ time (although presumably Huawei can avoid this by now taking a licence on the terms set by the Judge).
  • UP is entitled to damages dating back to 1 January 2013 at the determined major markets FRAND rate applied to UK sales. 
  • What constitutes a FRAND rate does not vary depending on the size of the licensee.
  • For a portfolio like UP’s and for an implementer like Huawei, a FRAND licence is worldwide.
  • It’s still legitimate to make offers higher or lower than FRAND if they do not disrupt or prejudice negotiations.
Abuse of dominance:
  • UP did not abuse its dominant position by issuing proceedings for an injunction prematurely (it began the litigation without complying with the Huawei v ZTE framework).
Calculating the FRAND rate:
  • A FRAND royalty rate can be determined by making appropriate adjustments to a ‘benchmark rate’ primarily based upon the SEP holder’s portfolio. 
  • In the alternative, if a UK-only portfolio licence was appropriate, an uplift of 100% on the benchmark rates would be required.
  • Counting patents is the only practical approach for assessing the value of sizeable patent portfolios, although it may be possible to identify a patent as an exceptional ‘keystone’ invention.
  • Comparable, freely negotiated licences can be used as to determine a FRAND rate.
The FRAND rates as determined:


Other FRAND terms:
  • The Judge goes into some details as to the terms which will be FRAND in the licence between Unwired Planet and Huawei – much of which will be worth reading for licensors and licensees in this field.  Of particular note is the royalty base for infrastructure (excluding services). 
Other remedies:
  • Damages are compensatory and are pegged to the FRAND rate.
Comment

There have been near continual disputes between the major players in the TMT field over the last decade or so.  The meaning of FRAND has been strategically important in a large number of cases.  However, many of these companies are very effective negotiators.  In the vast majority of cases, they are able to agree licences without resorting to litigation.  Where proceedings are initiated, the parties are usually able to settle long before a judgment is reached, particularly given the time and expense required to take a FRAND case all the way to trial.  (Such expense is, however, usually dwarfed by the value of the licence – many licences in this field are valued in $billions.) 

The scarcity of judicial opinion in this area means this is a rare opportunity to see how a respected UK judge has approached a number of the unresolved questions regarding FRAND. 

A number of significant questions remain unanswered however, and we will be exploring these in future blog posts.  There’s also the matter of the upcoming post-judgment hearing in a few weeks’ time, which will establish whether or not Huawei will actually be subject to an injunction in the UK, and of course the chance that either party might wish to appeal.  All in all, there’s plenty of interest to talk about, plenty of advice to be given to clients, and the FRAND debate will undoubtedly continue on.

FTC settles abusive acquisition of pharma licensing rights

On 18 January, the FTC announced that Mallinckrodt ARD Inc. (formerly Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) and its parent company have agreed to pay $100 million to settle FTC charges that they violated antitrust laws when Questcor acquired the rights to a drug that threatened its monopoly in the U.S. market for adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) drugs.  The announcement was made concurrently with the release of the FTC's complaint.

Antitrust (as opposed to merger) cases about acquisitions of competing technology are not an everyday occurrence.  However, this complaint has something of the flavour of the EU Commission’s Tetra Pak 1 decision.  In that case, the EU Commission objected to Tetra Pak’s acquisition (through a merger) of exclusive rights to what was at the time the only viable competing technology to Tetra Pak’s dominant aseptic packaging system.  The Commission (and subsequently the EU courts) held that this would prevent competitors from entering the market and therefore amounted to an abuse of a dominant position.  

The FTC’s Mallinckrodt complaint alleges that while benefitting from an existing monopoly over the only U.S. ACTH drug, Acthar, Questcor illegally acquired the U.S. rights to develop a competing drug, Synacthen (a synthetic ACTH drug which is pharmacologically very similar to Acthar).  This acquisition stifled competition by preventing any other company from using the Synacthen assets to develop a synthetic ACTH drug, preserving Questcor’s monopoly and allowing it to maintain extremely high prices for Acthar.  

To judge by the FTC’s complaint, the case appears to contain some pretty stark facts which may have contributed to the immediate settlement of the proceedings by Mallinckrodt.  Those facts also bring the case squarely into line with the US and EU competition regulators’ current concern over excessive pricing in pharma.

First up is the finding that Questcor had a 100% share of the U.S. ACTH market and that it took advantage of that monopoly to repeatedly raise the prices of Acthar from $40 a vial in 2001 to more than $34,000 per vial today – an 85,000% increase.  The complaint details that in August 2007 Questcor increased the price of Acthar more than 1,300% overnight from $1,650 to $23,269 per vial and that it has taken significant and profitable increases on eight occasions since 2011 pushing the price up another 46% to its current $34,034 per vial.  Acthar is a speciality drug used to treat infantile spasms, a rare seizure disorder affecting infants, as well as being a drug of last resort (owing to its cost) for a variety of other serious medical conditions.  According to the FTC, Acthar treatment for an infant with infantile spasms can cost more than $100,000.  In Europe, Canada and other parts of the world doctors treat these conditions with Synacthen which is available at a fraction of the price of Acthar in the U.S. (Synacthen is not available in the U.S. as it does not have FDA approval.)  The FTC relies on the supra-competitive prices charged in the U.S. for Acthar as evidence of Questcor’s monopoly power as well as its 100% market share and the existence of substantial barriers to entry.

It is also part of the FTC’s case that Questcor disrupted the bidding process for Synacthen when the rights came up for acquisition.  According to the complaint, Questcor first sought to acquire Synacthen in 2009, and continued to monitor the competitive threat posed by Synacthen thereafter.  When the U.S. rights to Synacthen were eventually marketed in 2011, dozens of companies expressed an interest in acquiring them with three firms proceeding through several rounds of detailed negotiations.  All three firms planned to commercialise Synacthen and to use it to compete directly with Acthar including by pricing Synacthen well below Acthar.  In October 2012, Questcor submitted an offer for Synacthen and subsequently acquired the rights to Synacthen for the U.S. and thirty-five other countries and did not subsequently bring the product to market in the US.

In addition to the $100 million payout, the proposed court order requires that Questcor grant a licence to develop Synacthen to treat infantile spasms and nephrotic syndrome to a licensee approved by the FTC, a pretty far-reaching remedy.  

This case is the latest in a string of cases on both sides of the Atlantic relating to escalating pharma prices (as discussed in our previous blog posts here and here).  While companies retain significant scope to price products as they see fit, it reaffirms that pharma companies should be wary of implementing very significant price increases in the absence of good objective reasons for doing so.  This is particularly so where the increase is facilitated by commercial strategies such as acquiring IP rights to existing/potentially competitive products.  In the EU, it is also worth remembering that – as established by Tetra Pak I (on appeal to the General Court) – an agreement which falls within a block exemption can at the same time constitute an infringement of Article 102.  So companies and their advisors should remember to wear Article 101 and 102 hats when reviewing agreements.

Helen Hopson