FRAND in the UK (May 2018 edition): Unwired Planet appeal; Apple v Qualcomm

This week has seen the English Court of Appeal hear Huawei’s appeal of the FRAND and remedies judgments issued last year by the High Court in the Unwired Planet litigation (see our reports here and here, and a more detailed analysis here).

Huawei’s appeal spans three main arguments:
 
  • The High Court should not have determined FRAND terms, including rates, for territories other than the UK: it was mistaken in holding that there can only be one set of FRAND terms in any given set of circumstances and erred in finding that this meant that the only FRAND licence was global.  
  • The Judge was mistaken to decide that the non-discrimination (ND) limb of FRAND allows a standard essential patent (SEP) holder to charge similarly situated licensees substantially different royalty rates for the same SEPs.
  • The Court should have found that Huawei had a defence to Unwired Planet’s injunction claim under Article 102 TFEU, and by application of the CJEU’s ruling in Huawei v ZTE: the Court was wrong to hold that the steps laid down by the CJEU in Huawei v ZTE were discretionary factors rather than mandatory conditions.
 
As well as seeking to rebut these points, and uphold the first instance decision, Unwired Planet is disputing:
 
  • The first instance finding that Unwired Planet held a dominant position (despite an acknowledged 100% market share in the market for the licensing of SEPs owned by Unwired, and the admitted indispensability of the infringed SEPs).
  • The decision that its unusually worded injunction claim was in fact a claim for a prohibitory injunction in the sense contemplated by the ruling of the Court of Justice in Huawei v ZTE.  (Unwired had claimed an injunction “save insofar as the Defendants … are entitled to and take a licence to the Declared Essential Patents on FRAND terms (in accordance with the Claimant’s undertakings and the ETSI IPR Policy) and insofar as the Claimant is and remains required to grant such a licence”.)
 
Meanwhile, the English court has this week adjudicated on the summary judgment claim in Apple v. Qualcomm.  (See here for our summary of the original scope of the case; Apple supplemented its claims against Qualcomm shortly before the March hearing to add a follow-on case based on the European Commission abuse decision – as to which, see here.)
 
Unlike in the recent Conversant v. Huawei & ZTE decisions, which confirmed that the English court had jurisdiction to hear a global FRAND claim at the remedies stage of a patent infringement action (although also granted permission to appeal that decision), in Apple v. Qualcomm, the High Court declined to allow Apple to bring its case alleging breach of Qualcomm’s FRAND undertaking.  The difficulty stems primarily from the attempt to use the UK Qualcomm subsidiary – which does not own relevant patents, and did not give FRAND undertakings – as an anchor defendant for a claim based on FRAND declarations given by its ultimate parent company, Qualcomm Inc.  The Judge, Morgan J, held that the reference in clause 6.1 of the ETSI IPR Policy to “the owner” of SEPs did not mean that affiliates of the owner should be required to comply with the ETSI FRAND undertaking.  Such an obligation would apply only if such affiliates themselves also owned IP to which the undertaking directly applied (e.g. other patents within the same family).  The Judge did not consider his ruling to be in any way inconsistent with Birss J’s ruling in Unwired Planet.  He therefore granted Qualcomm ‘reverse summary judgment’ against Apple’s claim, preventing Apple from continuing to advance this case (subject to the outcome of any permitted appeal).  
 
Apple had also brought a number of related claims, including for patent revocation/non-infringement and exhaustion.  These have been allowed to proceed (but arguably do not address the central dispute between the parties).  However, other issues relating to Qualcomm’s licensing practices were held not to meet the jurisdictional gateways, and not to be sufficiently closely related to the patent claims.  Apple’s competition law damages case, including a claim that Qualcomm charged “supra-FRAND royalties” also hangs in the balance – while the Judge was not concerned about similar US proceedings, he has expressed concerns about whether loss was actually suffered by the claimants in the jurisdiction, and has permitted Qualcomm to adduce evidence on this point, to which Apple may respond.
 
The judgment of Morgan J shows that the English court is alive to the need to allow only appropriate cases to proceed, but also contains valuable guidance on how future claimants can improve their chances of passing through the relevant jurisdictional gateways. 
 
We will report in due course on the outcome of the Unwired Planet appeal – judgment is expected before the Court’s August break. 

The CJEU guidance in MEO on price discrimination in licensing may also impact FRAND / SEP licences

Introduction

AG Wahl began his Opinion in MEO v Autoridade da Concorrência by noting that it presented the CJEU with an opportunity to clarify the law on differential pricing. Under Article 102(c) TFEU it can be an abuse for a dominant undertaking to apply “dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage”. Discrimination has always been a tricky issue under Article 102 (it is one of relatively few competition issues to have received a thorough discussion by the English Court of Appeal - see British Horseracing Board, paragraphs 265-278)  and it has never been entirely clear to what extent the EU authorities consider that the practice of price differentiation necessarily results in a finding of competitive disadvantage, or how much disadvantage is required to infringe Article 102. 

Price differentiation is a topical issue. The increasing use of pricing algorithms offers the potential for companies to engage in ‘personalised’ pricing on a mass scale, offering different prices to different consumers based on an algorithmic assessment of the highest price each individual is likely to pay. But they may also facilitate anti-competitive price coordination and so could give rise to concerns (see here and here).

Similarly, as the Internet of Things and 5G lead to new market entrants requiring SEP licences, it will be important for licensors to consider how to charge different licensees different prices without infringing the non-discrimination limb of FRAND.

Can it be assumed that price differentiation is likely to distort competition? Should a competition authority have to demonstrate that the competitiveness of any business placed at a disadvantage by differential pricing has suffered? The CJEU decision in MEO offers some useful guidance on these questions.

Facts

MEO is a mobile / telecoms service offered by Portugal Telecom. As part of this service MEO provides television content, and therefore pays royalties to the Portuguese collecting society that manages the rights of artists and performers, GDA.  In 2014 MEO made a complaint to the Portuguese Competition Authority that GDA had abused its dominant position by (amongst other things) applying different terms and conditions (including price) to MEO compared to another entity also providing television content, NOS. The Portuguese Competition Authority found that GDA had applied different tariffs to different customers between 2009 and 2013. However, it concluded that this price differentiation had no restrictive effects on MEO, and so took no action against GDA. MEO appealed this decision to the Portuguese Regulation and Supervision Court, which referred a number of questions regarding differential pricing to the CJEU.

CJEU decision

The CJEU referred to its previous decisions in Intel and Post Danmark II in setting out three key principles that applied:

  1. Proof of actual, quantifiable deterioration of a particular customer’s competitive position is not required for a finding of competitive disadvantage.

  2. All the relevant circumstances must be examined to determine whether price discrimination produces or is capable of producing a competitive disadvantage

  3. The mere presence of an immediate disadvantage affecting operators who are charged more does not mean that competition is distorted or capable of being distorted.

The CJEU also noted that when assessing particular prices charged by a dominant undertaking, the authorities may assess the undertaking’s negotiating power, the conditions and arrangements for charging any tariffs, their duration and amount, and the existence of any strategy aimed at excluding companies from a downstream market. The CJEU also reaffirmed that there is no de minimis threshold for the purposes of determining whether there is an abuse of a dominant position, albeit this will feed into the analysis of potential effect (paragraph 29). 

Impact

This decision offers helpful clarifications on how Article 102(c) should be interpreted. Although relatively narrow in scope, it has broad implications, particularly in the FRAND context; price discrimination between licensees is a controversial topic that has received relatively little judicial or regulator attention to date.  

As we describe in this article, in its Communication on SEPs, the Commission appeared to endorse a specific non-discrimination obligation in FRAND, stating that SEP holders cannot discriminate between implementers that are ‘similarly situated’. However, it did not specifically say that there is a requirement for distortion of competition between those similarly situated licensees (as for example the High Court had held in Unwired Planet, though this issue is being appealed), or whether harm to an individual firm rather than harm to competition might be sufficient (as a US court recently decided in TCL v Ericsson).

The CJEU’s MEO decision suggests that price discrimination will only be abusive if it leads to a distortion of competition (paragraph 27). So it seems there is scope for licensors to charge similarly situated licensees different royalty rates without breaching their FRAND obligations, as long as they do not distort competition by doing so.

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. 

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

NFC

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.

Interoperability

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.

MIFARE

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…

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. 

Third-party platform bans justified for genuinely luxury brands

The Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) has today ruled that third-party platform bans may be justified in the selective distribution of luxury goods. The CJEU’s decision in the Coty Germany reference proceedings broadly follows the opinion of Advocate General Wahl which was handed down earlier this year (see here, and further background here). 

The Court makes a number of rulings which will be of interest to brand owners:

  • Selective distribution may be justified for luxury goods to protect the ‘allure and prestige’. This clears up the uncertainty which arose following the Pierre Fabre judgment which seemed to suggest that the preservation of a luxury image could not justify a restriction of competition. The CJEU has confirmed that the judgment in that case should be confined to the particular facts at issue.
  • Third party platform bans may be justified in the selective distribution of luxury goods. The CJEU has ruled that, in the context of selective distribution, a supplier of luxury goods can, in principle, prohibit authorised distributors from using ‘in a discernible manner’ third-party platforms such as Amazon. Any third-party platform ban must have the objective of preserving the luxury image of the goods, be applied uniformly and not in a discriminatory fashion, and be proportionate to the objective pursued.

This ruling certainly gives some more leeway for brand owners of luxury goods, but should not be seen as an absolute green light for third-party platform bans. In particular, such restrictions must be justified by the goods in question (i.e. they must have a genuine ‘aura of luxury’) and must be a proportionate means of preserving the luxury image. This will be for national courts and authorities to interpret, and we can expect a fairly high threshold. The German Competition Authority, the Bundeskartellamt, has already said that it considers the CJEU’s decision to be limited to genuinely prestigious products. That said, the ruling does make clear that third-party platform bans do not amount to a hardcore restriction of competition, and thus it will be open to brand owners to seek to justify their use on a case-by-case basis.  

EU reaches agreement to end unjustified geoblocking

On 20 November the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission reached an agreement to adopt the proposed Geoblocking Regulation, which will come into force nine months after its publication in the EU Official Journal.

The Regulation is a key plank of the Commission’s Digital Single Market Strategy and it is intended to end unjustified geoblocking for consumers wishing to buy products or services online within the EU. 

The Commission’s other measures in relation to the digital single market include its e-commerce sector inquiry (here and here) and its antitrust investigation into absolute territorial restrictions in the distribution arrangements between Sky UK and the six Hollywood film studios (on which we have commented extensively here, here and here).

What about competition law?

An important rationale for the Regulation is that restrictions to cross-border sales by online traders are often unilateral and so do not constitute an “agreement or concerted practice” within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU.  Rather, a restriction on cross-border trade will only be caught by competition law if it is due to an agreement with a supplier, or the online trader is in a dominant position. 

Competition law’s limited ability to take action against unilateral conduct is underlined by the Commission’s closing of its investigation into Apple’s differential pricing policy for downloads, that resulted in UK consumers paying more than consumers in other Member States.  The issue was ultimately resolved by voluntary commitments from Apple in 2008 (here).

What is geoblocking?

Geoblocking is a term given to the practical and technical measures used by online traders to deny access to websites, or online services, to consumers based in Member States other than the website domain.  The Commission considers that these restrictions often result in consumers being charged more for products or services purchased online.

A well-known example of geoblocking is the car rental market: renting a car from a company in the UK can cost up to 53% more than renting from the same company in Poland, but a UK consumer cannot access the Polish site for the cheap deals.

What does the Geoblocking Regulation prohibit?

The Regulation prohibits unilateral commercial behaviour which discriminates on the basis of where a person is from, where they live or where a business is established. 

It does not (currently) apply to copyright protected works, nor does it harmonise prices between different EU Member States, or impose an obligation to sell. It also prohibits agreements containing passive (or unsolicited) sales restrictions which violate the rules.

The specific prohibitions are:

  • Geoblocking: A trader must not block or limit customers' access to websites because of a customer's nationality, residence or place of establishment.
  • Redirecting a customer without permission: A trader must seek permission before redirecting based on nationality or location.  Even if a customer agrees to the redirection the trader must make it easy to return to the website originally searched.
  • Discrimination: On the grounds of nationality/residence/place of establishment is prohibited; for applying example different terms and conditions on such grounds will not be permitted.  This prohibition applies to: 
    • sales of goods when the trader is based in a different Member State to the customer (for example buying a car or a refrigerator);
    • all electronically-supplied services, other than copyright-protected works, (for example internet hosting services); and
    • the sale of services provided in a specific physical location (for example buying a trip to an amusement park in another Member State). 
When is geoblocking justified? 

The Regulation accepts that some forms of geoblocking may be justified, for example in relation to specific national VAT obligations or different legal requirements.

SEPs, 5G and the IoT: where will the Commission land on use-based licensing?

In April this year we reported that the Commission had released a Roadmap towards a ‘Communication on Standard Essential Patents for a European digitalised economy’,  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. Originally expected in May, the Communication is now said to be likely to be published before the end of the year. Part of the reason for the delay appears to be a dispute between several directorates within the Commission as to the appropriateness of use-based licensing for Internet of Things (IoT) enabled devices.

Recap: the IoT & 5G

The Internet of Things (IoT) will result in increasing inter-connectivity between devices. For example, smart kitchen appliances can already be turned on remotely. A new smart fridge might re-order milk automatically. On a grander scale, lighting systems in towns and cities might vary the level of illumination produced by streetlamps based on the time of day, season, or even weather conditions. 

Some of these new technologies will be very data hungry. They will all require the ability to connect to mobile networks and other devices. This is where standards come in. Standards like 3G and 4G enable fast mobile connectivity. 5G, currently in development, will enable even faster transfers of data. Each of these standards incorporates thousands of patents which have been declared essential to use of the standard (SEPs). The holder of an SEP must commit to license its SEPs on Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms. 

The negotiation of FRAND terms is often contentious (see for example our reports on the Unwired Planet case in the UK, here and here, Huawei v ZTE in the EU, and Ericsson v D-Link and CSIRO v Cisco in the US). Most FRAND litigation to date has focussed primarily on mobile phones or similar devices. As more types of product with connectivity are developed, licensing negotiations (and litigation following failed negotiations) risk becoming even more complicated. However, as there could be more than 29 billion IoT connected devices by 2020, with IoT systems creating an economic impact of more than $11 trillion per year by 2025 (source), the stakes are considerable.

The difficulties of drafting the Communication

A number of recent reports have indicated considerable debate within the Commission about the contents of the Communication. The centre of the dispute is use-based licensing: whether SEP holders should be able to charge different rates to different licensees depending on the nature of the final product that implements the technology. 

For example, it is argued that 5G is more valuable to a mobile phone, where connectivity is integral to its operation, than to a smart energy meter that might only connect once a day. It is therefore suggested that charging a higher royalty rate for a 5G enabled mobile phone than a 5G enabled meter is fair. This is the position supported by some big SEP holders such as Qualcomm, Nokia and Ericsson.

On the other hand, small developers claim that by focussing on the final product, SEP holders are trying to take a cut of the value created by other inventors who have come up with innovative new uses of a technology. Some vocal critics of current licensing practices take issue with the SEP holder practice of granting licences only to those who produce and sell the final product, such as Samsung, Apple or Huawei. Instead, they argue that SEP holders should be obliged to grant licences to all-comers, including companies higher up the supply chain, for example to those that produce the wireless chipsets incorporating the SEP technology. 

However, this option could also create its own challenges. If a number of companies in the supply chain have all taken licences to the same underlying SEPs, this could result in a form of ‘double-dipping’ – allowing SEP holders to recover higher royalties (depending on the extent to which the licence would otherwise ‘pass-through’ from the company highest in the chain to the end manufacturer). It could also result in an increase in the number and complexity of licensing negotiations. Those who support use based licensing argue that the simplest way of licensing SEPs of this sort is at the point where the final product incorporating the patented technology is complete, and that a single licence at that point is the neatest and most efficient licensing model. 

Underlying both positions is a concern about the price to be paid for standard essential technology. Those who develop that technology and contribute it to standards want to ensure a return on their investment and argue that good financial incentives are required to ensure continued innovation. Those who use the technology argue that they are happy to pay, but also need their incentives to continue bringing new data-dependent products to market not to be crimped by patentees charging royalties which exceed the value contributed by standardised technologies. Implicitly, both arguments assume that relying on royalties at an earlier point in the value chain will result in lower costs for product developers and lower returns for patentees.

Our understanding is that within the Commission itself, some directorates largely support the views of the SEP holders. They cite concerns about the need to preserve SEP holders’ incentives to innovate and support the use based model, which would enable SEP holders to calibrate the royalties sought finely by reference to different uses. On the other hand, DG Competition continues to be concerned about the position of implementers. It notes that they may face significant difficulties in acquiring licences directly, as well as the potential for unjustified price discrimination between users if companies higher in the supply chain are not able to obtain, and pass on the benefits of, licences to all comers. Over recent years, DG Competition has also frequently focussed on incentives for follow-on innovation both in TMT and in other sectors, which again tends to favour the position of implementers. 

Whatever the final text of the Communication, the intensity of the debate surrounding it means that it is unlikely to be overly prescriptive. Discussion on these issues is likely to continue over the coming years across an array of industry forums and within bodies such as ETSI, not least because of the global nature of the debate. It’s also worth noting that representatives from a number of technology companies such as Nokia, Ericsson and Orange have formed a committee to establish an industry-wide code on best practices for SEP licensing (here – subscription required). It will be interesting to see if that code supports or conflicts with the Commission’s approach.

The CJEU’s Intel judgment – First thoughts and some predictions

Today’s Intel judgment from the Court of Justice does not strictly concern the Competition Law/IP interface.  However, it is a case which has considerable interest for potentially dominant companies, as well as a strong technology thread. 

At the basis of today’s judgment is the European Commission fine of €1.05bn, imposed on Intel back in 2009, and upheld by the General Court in 2014, for abusing a dominant position by granting exclusivity rebates to customers.  
 
In brief, the CJEU has today held that the General Court did not sufficiently analyse all of Intel’s arguments that its conduct did not foreclose competitors. The General Court’s failure to analyse the results of the ‘as efficient competitor’ (AEC) test was a particular focus of the criticism. The CJEU has therefore remitted the case to the lower court for further consideration on the central abuse of dominance question.  

Much ink will no doubt be spilled in analysing this judgment, but for now, the points below seem to be key:

  • Relevance of ‘as efficient’ competitors. The Court emphasises that Article 102 applies when conduct foreclosure of “as efficient competitors”; in other words, the provision is not intended as a tool for protecting entities which lack the ability to compete effectively and which are therefore likely to be less attractive to consumers.  
Strictly speaking, the CJEU’s remittal to the GC only requires it to look again at the AEC test because the Commission had in fact carried out such a test, and the GC had not responded to all of Intel’s arguments about it (143-144).  However, the fact that the Court embraces a reference to “competitors considered to be as efficient as [the dominant company]” within its general legal framework (133, 136) suggests that it will not be easy for competition authorities (or indeed private action claimants) to walk away from this test. This is mirrored in the Court’s description of the abuse finding which must be reached before an assessment of objective justification can take place (140).

  • Form vs. effects. On a first read, the judgment is a shot in the arm for effects- rather than form-based analysis (136-140).  On this reading, the mere fact that an exclusivity rebate exists is not enough in itself to establish anti-competitive foreclosure. The extent of dominance plays a role here, as well as the market coverage and duration of the practice (both the market coverage and duration were considered by the Advocate General to be ‘inconclusive’ in themselves).  
However, there are a couple of stings in the tail.  First, to avoid a formalist approach, a company under investigation must adduce evidence during the initial investigation to show that its conduct was not in fact capable of affecting competition (138).  Past cases (e.g. AstraZeneca) suggest that this evidence should be contemporaneous with the conduct.  Second, evidence of a strategy to exclude will be considered relevant (139).  While case law establishes that a company’s intention is less relevant than the objective effects of the conduct, it seems to us that clear evidence of an anti-competitive strategy will make it much more difficult to support an argument that the conduct was incapable of affecting competition. 

It’s perhaps too early to predict what impact this judgment will have on future cases – not least because a further referral back to the CJEU in this case remains possible.  However, a couple of possible consequences are:

  • Reduced options for formalistic short-cuts in establishing infringement – arguably this is of greater relevance in the private litigation context, given that competition authorities have tended to carry out extensive analysis of effects as a fall-back (or have closed cases where such evidence cannot be established, as with the CMA’s recent decision on impulse ice creams).
  • Again in the private litigation context, the practice of splitting questions of dominance and abuse into separate trials may not be the best solution for conduct of this kind, given that the degree of dominance may affect whether the conduct is in fact anti-competitive or not.
As for Intel’s fate when it comes back before the GC, all bets are off.  But given the CJEU’s indication of the significance of evidence of an anti-competitive strategy, we wouldn’t like to bet against a further confirmation of the Commission’s original conclusions…