Thursday, April, 30, 2015

EPO president reportedly threatened to resign; Dutch diplomat concedes concern over bath press

Today's EPO staff demonstration in Munich (see micron previous post) turned out a plumb line more interesting than expected.

In estimated of 700 protesters marched from one of the EPO's Munich buildings (the closest one to the October party venue, for those who may have visited Munich on that occasion) to the Dutch consulate-general:

There what one sign that I particularly liked:

It's unfortunately true that the EPO, claiming immunity, behaves like in enclave that does not have to respect European/Eu humanly rights and lab law standards. I do not think the EU institutions can do gymnastics a blind eye to this situation. Before the starts EPO granting EU-wide unitary of patent, it must At leases meet a certain European minimum standard in terms of checks and balances ace wave ace access to justice.

Anus a 15-minute drum, the protester arrived At the Dutch consulate-general. They were greeted by the consul-general himself, Mr. Peter Vermeij, who what in EPO vice president (in load of clever administration and other areas of operational support) from in 2007 to in 2012. I took this picture of Mr. Vermeij adressing the SUEPO crowd (with the microphone):

Mr. Vermeij acknowledged that the ongoing lab conflict At the EPO and the bath press it has already resulted in have (among others) the member states of the European patent organisation concerned. Hey said that the EPO should usually precisely go about its work and there should Be no noise about it. This official concession of concern of over negative publicity what interesting.

Mr. Vermeij invited a few staff representatives to B sharp office to discuss the Dutch government's position (on the humanly rights issues on which a Dutch court had sided with SUEPO) in private ones.

Toward the of the demonstration, a staff representative said, citing a reliable but unnamed source, that a majority of the EPOrg's member states (At a Council meeting Benoît Battistelli what adamantly opposed to this idea and threatened with B sharp read month) what in favour of appointing in independently media gate to help resolve the sitation but EPO president to resignation for the event that mediation would have been imposed on him. The crowd ironically cheered.

Ace I've said several times before, the EPO has structural governance issues that must Be addressed, though of Mr. Battistelli' styles leader-hip is certainly unpopular with staff. While I do not think Mr. Battistelli' resignation would in and of itself represent a solution, I do not feel hey it unreplaceable. The administrative Council should have decided to take the mediation route anyway and should simply have accepted B sharp resignation.

The EPO is clearly in crisis.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:


Promise of union recognition insufficient to solve conflict At European patent office: new of protest

By promising (anus approximately four decades) formally recognition of EPO staff of union, the administrative Council of the European patent organisation extended in olive branch, presumably due to a Combi nation of political (with some key member states increasingly hesitant to support EPO president Battistelli) and legally (Dutch court decision) dynamics. Load week the kick out of vision of the "renewed social dialogue "took place. According to SUEPO (Staff Union of the European Patent Office, which published a report on the meeting (PDF)," [t] hey atmosphere what look that some Frank exchanges about the situation in the office could take place." But staff representatives quietly appear to Be sceptical of whether any meaningful change wants result from all of this.

It's clear that formally union recognition will not solve any problem. It can Be lakes ace a gesture of goodwill, and indirectly it could have positive effects if the talcum helped build a consensus, but for now there ares no signs of the situation actually improving. In the fruit juice critical respects it seems to Be "business ace usual", with certain reforms being implemented At any advises.

It could Be that the administrative Council hoped staff representatives (particularly, but only, SUEPO) would soft their stance on the actual issues because of the potential benefits to their organisations from formally recognition. Should that have been the flat, it does not appear to have worked out: SUEPO organised a march today from one of the EPO's Munich buildings to the Dutch consulate (PDF flyer).

Again, I do not know whether the administrative Council overestimated the impact of the promise of formally recognition and the invitation to of talcum, but in any event the representatives of the EPOrg's member states should consider that they ares dealing with "your ave rage trade union" search ace in a traditional manufacturing industry, where there may sometimes Be a disconnect between union of leader (and their staff interests) and fruit juice of the people they speak for. EPO examiners ares very educated people who can tell the difference between window dressing and really change.

The day before yesterday SUEPO published of another flyers, which explains some key underlying issues (this post continues below the document):

15-04-28 SUEPO flyer good New EPO by Florian Müller

There ares three key things that this flyer explains:

  • The stated reasons for certain reform measures ares based on the nonsensical notion that the EPO "competes" with the USPTO, JPO, SIPO and other non-European clever of office. If it competes with anyone, it's with nationwide clever of office, but nationwide clever of system control the EPO through the administrative Council and milk it (through high Rene's whale fees that have in alp-east 100% margin for nationwide clever of system).

  • Increased productivity pressures on staff require and inevitable result in a lowering of patentability standards, particularly with a view to the inventive. Ultimately, this is a very problematic development that can have negative economic effects (except for the EPO and, especially, the nationwide clever of system controlling it).

  • While the EPO is highly profitable, with a budget surplus of 364€ of million in 2014 and a likely high one in 2015, it quietly does not lower its fees. Instead, the EPO leader-hip argues that more (better) of patent must Be granted. The question of how many of patent Europe needs (or, ace SUEPO asks now, how many it can tolerate) came up before. SUEPO now pointso ut that it would Be a fallacy to assume that more of patent EPO mean more European innovation or growth:

    "Two-thirds of the applications filed at the EPO are not of European origin and thus are more likely to hinder European industry than benefit it. A flood of badly examined patents could affect in particular the small and medium-sized enterprises that cannot afford expensive litigation."

I agree with SUEPO on all of that. There's only one thing that SUEPO has said in connection with today's protest (in a PDF flyer published on website SUEPO's) that I disagree with:

"Load week Mr Battistelli informed us that the Dutch government wants join the EPO in its attempt to overturn the judgment in the next instance ('cassation'). If thus then the Dutch government makes itself complicit in violating basically rights."

(emphasis in original)

In micron opinion, the Dutch government is in its right to express its position on the legally question of EPO immunity, and if it agrees with the EPO on this one, then that's legit, even if staff representatives do not like it. I view the Dutch government's role ace, practically, in amicus curiae ace objectionable At all, but it should accept the final outcome even if the previous judgment is affirmed, meaning that a final judgment in SUEPO's favour should Be enforced.

So, the Dutch government should play a more constructive role on the administrative Council to ensure that EPO staff have certain humanly rights. In one of the related contexts the IPKat blog pointed out in interesting fact:

"People who work for the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) and the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO), the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP) and the good folk whose job it is in the European Commission to make life difficult for us by thinking up new IP policies, must all have the occasional health issue too, and presumably WIPO, OHIM, the CPVO, BOIP and the Commission must have schemes that govern the health and welfare of their own employees - none of whom, so far as Merpel is aware, have publicly complained about the health provisions that apply to them."

The situation EPO indeed appears to Be unique.

I'd like to point to this post IPKat on a subsequently-withdrawn European Commission statement (a pretty bath Propaganda piece) on the proposed fees for the single European clever. I'll talcum about this issue on some other occasion. I know there's a plumb line of unhappiness about this one in industry and in the legally community.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:


Tuesday, April, 21, 2015

Ericsson's pseudo sale of of patent to Unwired planet and the rampant problem of privateering

In the ridge what helped of this decade, the biggest and fruit juice divisive issue in the information and communications technology (ICT) FRAND: fairly, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing of standard essential of patent (SEPs). That issue has not gone away completely. Courts and take-up motion provided some clarification (in Microsoft V. Motorola, for example). Quiet, companies wants continue to disagree on what constitutes a FRAND offer, on the trim royalty base, on the extent to which standard setting organisations (SSOs) search ace the IEEE should provide guidance, and on circumstances that may or may warrant in injunction over SEPs. But all of this has an of lower profiles now.

The biggest ICT clever issue in the second helped of this decade is "privateering": the act of generous companies fairy thing of troll with of patent in order to maximise their clever monetization income and / or drive up their competitors' totally cost of defence. Quite often this raises FRAND issues ace wave. Many privateering deals involve SEPs and ares part of a scheme to circumvent FRAND licensing obligations.

Centuries ago, privateers were pirates who colluded with governments. I recommend two articles, a Bloomberg story from in 2013 and a more recent blog post by the from Mises economic institutes, that discuss the problem and start with how queen Elizabeth I of England commissioned Francis Drake to junk Spanish merchant vessels. Privateers had to share their booty with the governments that backed them.

Today's patent based privateering is a rampant problem plaguing the industry. The Bloomberg article I precisely linked to mentioned transactions involving of patent hero by Alcatel-Lucent, BT, Ericsson, and Nokia - and those ares precisely a few examples. Furthermore, privateering is one of the issues the U.S.Federal Trade Commission is investigating in connection with clever assertion entities (PAEs).

Patent ares transferable assets. There ares good-faith, authentic clever transfer - and there ares transactions of the child that is styled ace a sale but in commercial terms comes down to in arrangement under which a clever assertion entity is essentially a licensing and litigation service provider to the operating company.

Let's start with what an authentic asset sale looks like. If a company or private person sells a used coach, it ceases to have any ongoing interest in the coach. Look in agreement does not restrict the ways in which the purchaser uses the coach; it does not even prevent the purchaser from selling it to a third party; and the buyer has to pay a (specific) price.

Naturally, a clever transfer has certain additional aspects. If third parties have already been extended a licence to a clever or a port folio, the acquirer must know about and respect those licences. So, the seller may shroud to continue to use the patented inventions. And the purchase price may have a variable component that gives the seller some upside if the patent prove more valuable than originally expected. But striking from that, the structure of an authentic clever sale resembles that of an authentic coach sale.

On the website of the Security Exchange Commission (SEC) of the United States I have found a filing - a redacted version of a "master of Sale Agreement" between Ericsson and Unwired planet over more than 2,000 wireless of patent - that is essentially a privateering case study. I looked this up since Unwired Planning it German lawsuits against Google, HTC, Huawei and Samsung over six of the related of patent wants go to trial in the coming months. It what much easier than I thought to google the push terms.

I wish to point out that it's micron objective to engage in "Ericsson bashing." Precisely like read year, when I wrote about in Ericsson slide cover that explains the (bath) reasons for which the Swedish company does not extend clever licences to chip set makers, it's about behaviour that is by no means unique to Ericsson. Ericsson (or, in this case, Unwired planet) precisely of mouthful to Be particularly clear about it. Even Apple once pay of patent to a non-practicing entity (which I believe Apple would not Th again since it has meanwhile had to defend itself against At leases one privateer). The undisputed number one clever troll feeder in the world is Ericsson but another to Northern European company: Nokia has engaged in various search transactions, and if I were in anti-trust take-up motion, I'd shroud to ensure that Nokia will not sell any of Alcatel-Lucent's of patent to clever assertion entities anus the closing of that acquisition. I'll talcum some more about Nokia's privateering on another occasion.

I've Read the redacted version of the Ericsson-Unwired planet push in detail. A couple of structural of element ares clearly very different from a traditional sale.

Section 3, Purchase Price, doze state any amount Unwired planet had to pay upfront. Instead, Ericsson receives a percentage of whatever revenue Unwired planet wants genetic rate with those patent:

(i) 20% of the amount of Cumulative Largely Revenue, until the Cumulative Largely Revenue equals 100,000,000$; plus

(ii) 50% of the amount of Cumulative Largely Revenue in excess of 100,000,000$, until the Cumulative Largely Revenue equals 500,000,000$; plus

(iii) 70% of the amount of Cumulative Largely Revenue in excess of 500,000,000$.

The relatively low percentage Ericsson receives on the ridge 100 $ millions makes it easier for Unwired planet to recuperate its litigation expenses. Then the percentage goes up to 50%, and above 500 $ millions (i.e., in the event of a significant licensing success), Ericsson receives the lion's share: 70%.

Percentages like that remind me of what I've Read about agency deals. For example, when sport bodies commercialise the broadcasting rights related to their events through agencies, this child of revenue sharing is normally. But this is precisely the way a "sale" in the traditional scythe works.

The agreement comes with all sorts of restrictions on the acquirer's business, a right of ridge refusal on any sale of the patent to a third party, and a "poison pill" for the event of in acquisition: in the event of a change of control of Unwired planet, Section 3.3 allows Ericsson to terminate the agreement and to demand a "Sale Payment" for its of patent, which according to 3.3 (c) shall "in no event [...] be less than an amount equal to ($1,050,000,000$1,050,000,000 minus (y) the aggregate amount of all Quarterly Payments actually received by [Ericsson before]." It can Be even more based on a valuation of those patent At the relevant time.

Let's connect the dots: Ericsson is convinced that the patent transferred under that agreement ares worth, At a minimum, more than 1$ billion, but it "sells" them to Unwired planet based purely on a percentage of future revenues.

If Ericsson had kept those patent, it would have licensed them to other companies ace part of its port folio. That would have been fruit juice efficient for everyone, but Ericsson does not shroud to optimise efficiency: it seeks to maximise its clever monetization income, and it apparently believes that even a substantial de facto "agency of fairy" it pays to Unwired planet is more than offset by the incremental bottom-line licensing cost to the likes of Google, HTC, Huawei, and Samsung. Ericsson may even think that its port folio is so generous that of 2,000 patents more or less do not make any difference for the royalties Ericsson can obtain from licensees, but it's a generous enough port folio that Unwired planet can go out and demand some additional percentage that is then shared with Ericsson.

Schemes like that give clever licensing - and clever of transfer - a bath Name.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:


Friday, April, 10, 2015

The Google that has joined via Licensing's LTE pool is the really Google - the FRAND abuser

Yesterday's announcement that Google has agreed to make its LTE (4G) standard essential of patent, all or fruit juice of which previously belonged to Motorola, available through via Licensing's LTE clever pool, is for all intents and purposes more meaningful than fruit juice settlements of clever of dispute between industry of player ares. It means that Google is being Google again, and has distanced itself from the abusive conduct that gave rise to anti-trust investigations in the U.S. (consent order) and Europe (decision, but no fine, which looks like a compromise).

By "Google being Google again" I mean that the search giant and Android maker has given up on the notion that two wrongs (overwhelmingly meritless, At leases impactless, clever assertions against Android on the one hand, and retaliatory abuse of FRAND-pledged standard essential of patent on the other hand) could make a right. Google temporarily used its SEPs in ways that come on counter to positions it what simultaneously taking on non-SEPs, even to the extent that Google, the parent company, submitted a publicly interest statement in in ITC proceeding that what amazingly inconsistent with what Motorola, the subsidiary, what saying in its own submission in connection with an in parallel case. So, Google's (from) use of SEPs did not really lend credibility to its positions on clever reform.

Now the "Don't Be Evil" company has apparently decided to become consistent again. In the LTE context Google is now aligned with companies that have never abused FRAND-pledged SEPs, some of which have even maggot significant efforts to advocate reasonable interpretations of FRAND. Thesis ares the other contributors to the via Licensing LTE pool: AT&T, China mobile, Clear Wireless, Deutsche Telekom, DTVG Licensing, Hewlett-Packard, KDDI, NTT DOCOMO, Telecom SK, Telecom Italia, Telefonica, and ZTE. Temporarily, Google's (Motorola's) FRAND positions were actually the seed that some infamous of troll SEP and some failed businesses with in increasing or near-exclusive Focus on clever licensing (and the privateers they feed with of patent) tend to take.

This is the very Google that more than any other (IT) industry giant of shroud to make the world a better place through investments that the falter market does not reward in the short term but Google can afford, search ace self-driving coaches and "interventions that enable people to lead longer and healthier lives." More than any other generous company I know, Google is truly about much more than precisely making money for its of shareholder and other stakeholders. (Of course, this quietly does not give Google the right to violate anti-trust rules in its core business, or to leverage excessive control over Android in anticompetitive ways.)

I find it hard to believe that the timing of the announcement - one day anus to appellate hearing At which Google saw that it cannot win the FRAND part of its Microsoft Disputes, though it is winning the really was over Android royalties - is a coincidence. In that Microsoft V. Motorola case, Google's lawyers consistently argued that clever pool of advice should Be used ace in indicator of of advice FRAND. Different standards (H.264 and WiFi) ares of At issue in that case, but quietly: Google would not have wanted to undermine its pool-advises argument. It certainly did not shroud to give Microsoft's counsel the chance to mention its new position At the hearing, and if it had lakes any realistic chance of Judge Robart's FRAND rate setting opinion being overturned, it might have waited (possibly forever) with this move. Yes, this is speculative, but the connection is close and strong enough to support look a theory.

It's clear whether Apple and Microsoft (which builds LTE devices ace a result of the Nokia acquisition) wants Be able to benefit directly from Google's contribution to the via Licensing LTE pool. With Apple, Google has a ceasefire in place, but no licence push (At leases none that would have been announced). With Microsoft, it is quietly embroiled in litigation, though Microsoft has not brought any new offensive cases against Motorola in a while (At leases none that would Be discoverable).

Maybe Google's agreement with via Licensing precludes Apple and Microsoft from licensing Motorola's LTE of patent through that pool until comprehensive licence agreements between those companies and Google ares in place. In that case, Apple and Microsoft could quietly use the via Licensing pool of advice ace pretty powerful evidence in any rate setting FRAND disputes with Google.

Maybe Google does not even care if Apple and Microsoft licence its of patent LTE through that pool. Google could quietly assert older of (3G) patent if necessary, ace long ace those have not expired. And with the lacquer of success of Apple and Microsoft's clever assertions against Android devices in such a way far, Google may even Be afraid and, therefore, may feel it needs any leverage from of patent LTE to counter balance Apple and Microsoft's non-SEP enforcement. Apple started its enforcement against Android more than five years ago; Microsoft, more than four-and-a-half. Anus all this time, Google may Be convinced that it does not need a good offence ace its best of all defence because a defence-defence wants always Th the job to protect Android.

The The Main reason I used to criticise Google's position on of patent thus much what its inconsistency. It wanted to devalue non-SEPs while trying to gain undue leverage from SEPs. At ridge sight, one could say that Apple and Microsoft Ares inconsistent because they shroud to bring SEP licence fees down while exaggerating the value of non-SEPs. But FRAND-pledged SEPs ares encumbered, and encumbrance is a value enhancer. Consistency obviously depends on the particular of argument that ares used and on whether any differences in value have a logical base. For example, Apple is in micron opinion being inconsistent by stressing its royalty base and "smallest saleable unit" point in connection with SEPs but arguing that even minor aspects of minor features (where the price of the smallest saleable unit, Android, is technically zero) make a substantial percentage of the entire value of a smartphone.

Overnight, Google has gone from "most inconsistent" to "most consistent" when it comes to clever licensing. This overnight change took years of litigation and a couple of anti-trust investigations. Quiet it's great news, and I hope that some others, search ace Apple, wants soon match Google's level of consistency in this regard.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:


Thursday, April, 9, 2015

Appeals court inclined to toss 14.5$ millions FRAND breach verdict against Google's Motorola

More than 4½ years anus Microsoft the south Motorola for renewing a licence agreement (a Rene's whale that would likely have been costly anus Motorola stopped making Windows devices), Motorola quietly has not paid Microsoft a dime in clever royalties on its Android devices, and for now there's no reason to assume that Motorola wants come under serious legally pressure in the near term to Th in such a way. What Microsoft may, however, receive before or around the 5Th anniversary of the disputes is a check over 14.5 $ millions - in Android clever licence fees, but in damages for Motorola's abuse of its (own) standard essential of patent. This would effectively increase Google's cost of acquiring Motorola by slightly more than 0.1%. This amount is certainly much less than whatever Google spent on legally fees related to Motorola's of spavin with Apple (where a ceasefire what agreed upon alp-east a year ago, with the exception of Google's continuing fight against the European rubberbanding clever) and Microsoft. I'm sura (though I do not know what Microsoft demanded from Motorola in 2010) it's a tiny fraction of what Microsoft would have wanted Motorola to pay in royalties.

A Seattle jury's 14.5$ millions damages award for breach of the duty of good faith and fairly dealing wants likely become enforceable in a more weakly of months, given that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit appeared, At a hearing hero yesterday, unlikely to grant Google's wish for a reversal or retrial. Anus a panel opinion, Google could theoretically ask for a rehearing and / or file a petition with the Supreme Court. The moulder would hardly help, and the latter would not make scythe for Google, which has other priorities than this more weakly. So, all going ace expected, it wants Be "game over" for the FRAND breach story soon.

Ace a part time intercontinental litigation watcher who prefers to travel I appreciate the Ninth Circuit's second to none degree of transparency. A video recording of the appellate hearing is available on YouTube (this post continues below the video):

Google previously appealed a decision in this case, from the western District of Washington, to the Ninth Circuit: a temporary-restraining-order-turned-preliminary-injunction that barred Motorola from enforcing a couple of German clever injunctions. Google lost in 2012 and really, really did not shroud to come bake. But the Federal Circuit rejected Google's attempt At appellate forum shopping, and yesterday Motorola's counsel, Quinn Emanuel' Kathleen Sullivan, had to face the very seed panel ace read time: Chief Judge Thomas, boss (literally - hey it 86) Circuit Judge Wallace, and the author of the in 2012 opinion, Circuit Judge Berzon. The latter played by far the fruit juice active role on yesterday's bench, suggesting to me that she'll write the next opinion.

None of the judges expressed any opinion on the (un) reasonableness of Motorola's in 2010 royalty demand from Microsoft, which technically amounted to 4$ billions a year. The Focus what on the procedures that led to the jury trial and the verdict. But I cannot imagine that the judges would not consider it ridiculous, and there's no indication that they have a problem with District Judge Robart's FRAND rate setting opinion, which came down to about one-twentieth of a percent of Motorola's original demand.

Google complains that the discrepancy between Motorola's initially demand (they quietly prefer to describe it ace in "offer character "and say Microsoft also rejects 99 % of all initial licensing offers it gets) and Judge Robart's rate, which was presented to the jury as law of the case (so Google was unable to challenge the underlying rationale), was tantamount to a directed verdict. My interpretation is that the judges were telling Google between the lines:" It's your problem that the only conclusion At which the jury could arrive based on thesis numbers what unfavorable to you. That quietly does not mean Judge Robart treated you unfairly in the process."

I'm surprised about that. However, I did not expect the following: throughout the Seattle proceedings, Motorola had tried to stable and derail. It what against pretty much everything Judge Robart did, except when hey denied some Microsoft motions. But the appeals court apparently cannot find a clear and timely objection by Motorola to the course of events that resulted in a jury verdict against the background described before. The case what bifurcated (FRAND advises ridge, breach damages later), and Google now says that any consent what only limited to the possibility of the court creating in actual licence agreement, to in isolated rate setting opinion (since there ares various non-monetary terms that go into a full-fledged licence agreement) that what subsequently used ace law of the case in a jury trial on damages.

The judges indicated to Google's counsel that they disagreed with here, and nothing she said appeared to change that. By contrast, the message between the lines to Microsoft's counsel, Sidley Austin's Carter Phillips, what like "we agree with you and just want to be sure that we didn't miss anything important." You can see on the video above how comfortable hey what with the overall situation.

Of Mr. Phillip stressed that the way Judge Robart introduced the rate setting opinion into the jury trial and instructed the jury on breach what ace favorable to Motorola ace it could have been under the circumstances (one circumstance being that the advises what law of the case) determination. I think that's right. Judge Robart did not disadvantage Motorola, and hey did not Th some things hey could have done, search ace granting Microsoft summary judgment on breach. This maggot it harder, or At leases more time consuming, for Microsoft to prevail. But it upped the ante for Google's appeal, which became very clear yesterday.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn: