Federal Circuit dismisses SSPPU "rule"

Readers of this blog will know that I've frequently questioned the idea that there's a "rule" mandating that royalty or damages for infringing multi-component products be calculated using a "Smallest Salable Patent-Practicing Unit" (SSPPU) as a value-base. The idea of this "rule" has attracted quite some powerful followers and in February 2015 it was even codified into the new IEEE patent policy (!).

Well, on December 3, 2015, in an appeal decision in the CSIRO vs. Cisco case, the US Federal Circuit made it crystal clear that no such "rule" exists.

The decision includes other interesting opinions too, but I'll limit this post to royalty-base aspects. 

This statement from the decision sums things up quite nicely:

"The rule Cisco advances — which would require all damages models to begin with the smallest salable patent-practicing unit — is untenable. It conflicts with our prior approvals of a methodology that values the asserted patent based on comparable licenses. ...Such a model begins with rates from comparable licenses and then “account[s]for differences in the technologies and economic circumstances of the contracting parties.” Finjan, 626 F.3d at 1211. Where the licenses employed are sufficiently comparable, this method is typically reliable because the parties are constrained by the market’s actual valuation of the patent."

In other words, an SSPPU royalty-base "rule" would e.g. conflict with the use of comparable licenses as evidence of damages value. Given the importance placed on comparable license evidence in US law, an SSPPU royalty-base "rule" can therefore not exist.

Besides the square dismissal of the imaginary SSPPU "rule", the Federal Circuit also noted that:

"The choice of royalty base — which is often the focus of the apportionment analysis—is irrelevant to the district court’s analysis. The particular rates relied on by the district court were contemplated as cents per end unit sold by Cisco, but they could equally have represented cents per wireless chip without affecting the damages calculation.",

and:

"Because the parties’ discussions centered on a license rate for the ’069 patent, this starting point for
the district court’s analysis already built in apportionment. Put differently, the parties negotiated over the value of the asserted patent, “and no more."".

It's good to also see this point being made. People - oddly - seem to forget that payments for legitimate use of others' IPR are not made in "percent", but in real money, i.e. Dollars, Euros, Yuan etc. So what's ultimately relevant is the value - in real money - that a patent portfolio brings to the end-product. In this sense, a too strong focus on a specific model parameter such as a royalty-base is arguably irrational.

Hopefully, this Federal Circuit decision can bring any ongoing debate about SEP FRAND license value in line with actual law. 

FOSS patents and the royalty base

In a recent FOSS patents post, blogger Florian Mueller continues to advocate that the SEP license royalty base for cellular mobile devices should be changed from the end-product to the "smallest saleable unit", i.e. the chipset. In the post, quite some disappointment is expressed regarding Judge Robart's "failure" to mandate a chipset royalty base in Microsoft vs. Motorola. 

As I mentioned in a previous post, the royalty base is a parameter in a specific royalty calculation model. What matters in the end is the absolute payable royalty, and that it considers the value that the patent portfolio in question brings to the end-product. I believe that judges adjudicating patent cases are generally well aware of this.

But there's a statement in the FOSS patents post that specifically caught my attention: "Apple's position is that the difference between the price of an iPhone and that of a cheap "feature" phone (colloquially also called "dumbphone") is unrelated to wireless communications standards. I support Apple on that one"

I'm not sure I'd support that statement. The difference in price between a "dumbphone" and a "smartphone" most certainly appears to be related to wireless communication standards. 

Imagine a "smartphone" that only includes 2G wireless communication standards. Such a "smartphone" would hardly command a high price on the market, if indeed it could be sold at all. But simply add 3G/4G to it and suddenly it becomes a very attractive product. Clearly, the 3G/4G wireless communications standards bring tremendous value to a "smartphone" device. 

But while we're at it, why not compare Apples to Apples?

I'll simply quote myself from an earlier post: We can look at the illustrating example of the iPod Touch vs. the iPhone. These products are very much alike, with the difference largely being that one has cellular connectivity and the other one doesn't. The products have similar specs and both carry the "brand magic" of the OEM, Apple. Yet today's price difference between the two is around $250. 

Surely that's a more interesting price difference.

China and Qualcomm - a new reference

On Feb 9, US chip maker and wireless SEP-holder Qualcomm reached a concluding settlement with the National Development Reform Commission (NDRC) of China, under the Anti-Monopoly Law investigation it has been subject to.

In practice, the settlement results in Qualcomm's cellular SEP portfolio royalty rate being 3.25% of the net selling price of 3G- or 3G/4G-compliant devices sold in China. Clearly the Chinese authorities deemed Qualcomm's original rate to be unreasonably high, since the imposed discount is almost 35%.

But besides that specific message to Qualcomm, a broader message can also be detected here. China tells the world that it does not embrace market disruptiveness with respect to the cellular SEP FRAND licensing model per se. It confirms the applicability of long-standing basic SEP-portfolio licensing principles, with the end-product price as the royalty-base and royalty rates in the order of lower single-digit percentages for strong SEP-portfolios.

This message from China is actually a powerful endorsement of the importance of basic wireless R&D to the ecosystem. Hopefully regulators and policy makers worldwide will consider this input when confronted with various SEP-devaluing proposals popping up in recent times.

New IEEE patent policy approved

On February 9, new IEEE bylaws with radical changes to the patent policy were adopted by the IEEE board. I commented on the alarming content of that policy in an earlier post.

If the policy is allowed to stay this way, I fear that IEEE will over time become irrelevant as a telecoms standards setting organization due to its sudden anti-innovation stance.

A key clause of the policy describes factors for determining a reasonable rate, and the final wording "should include, but need not be limited to, consideration of" was used. But if both "new" and "traditional" factors are to be considered, I think there can be confusion, if not contradiction. For example, the new policy essentially says that the value contributed to the chipset, or perhaps even only a part of it, should be considered. So how can you also consider the value contributed to the end-product, which is something entirely different. And for that matter, are you supposed to compare or combine these valuations, and if so, how? 

In its recently issued Business Review Letter, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) appeared to base its decision to clear the content of the policy on a broad and theoretical reading of that very clause; "Significantly, the Update makes clear that the determination of Reasonable Rates 'need not be limited to' these factors. The Update, then, does not mandate any specific royalty calculation methodology or specific royalty rates.";

I for one don't agree with the US DoJ. I rather predict that "should include, but need not be limited to" followed by an exhaustive list of factors, will - in practice - be at the exclusion of other factors that cause confusion or contradiction, as mentioned above. Which is why I reviewed the clause from that viewpoint.

Unfortunately the DoJ clearance may ultimately be to the detriment of US consumers, as the innovation content of WiFi and other standards is likely to be diluted. In fact, it may already have begun, considering e.g. Qualcomm's recent statement to not abide by the new policy.

For IEEE to stay relevant, it needs to be inclusive with regards to the world's top innovators and innovations. It should be focusing on making the world's most technically advanced and future-proof standards. It can't be wasting its time designing around technology that would ultimately have been beneficial for consumers.

Clarifications from the Federal Circuit

On December 4, a much anticipated opinion was delivered by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit") in the Ericsson vs. D-Link et. al. case, concerning a WiFi (IEEE 802.11) SEP portfolio license. I'm pleased to note that the Federal Circuit in several aspects aligned itself with what I've myself been expressing in recent posts under this blog.

Firstly, on the issue of "royalty stacking", the Federal Circuit rejected jury instructions on royalty stacking because the defendants failed to present evidence that there was a royalty stacking problem: “A jury, moreover, need not be instructed regarding royalty stacking unless there is actual evidence of stacking. The mere fact that thousands of patents are declared to be essential to a standard does not mean that a standard-compliant company will necessarily have to pay a royalty to each SEP holder. In this case, D-Link’s expert "never even attempted to determine the actual amount of royalties Defendants are currently paying for 802.11 patents."” This is what I opined in my earlier post on royalty stacking, i.e. damaging royalty stacking shouldn't be assumed to exist per se, but instead clear evidence to that effect needs to be presented in each case. Once again we need to remember that royalty stacking occurs per definition in wireless SEP portfolio licensing. That doesn't mean that it's automatically harmful to the market nor to any given OEM.

Secondly, on "Patent hold-up", again no evidence of such was presented: “Absent evidence that Ericsson used its SEPs to demand higher royalties from standard-compliant companies, we see no error in the district court’s refusal to instruct the jury on patent hold-up or to adjust the instructions expressly to take patent hold-up into account.” As I wrote in my post on portfolio licensing and patent hold-out, evidence of "patent hold-up" is hard to find in reality. But the key point from the Federal Circuit again being that clear evidence must be presented in each case, it should not simply be presumed to exist just because it's a theoretical possibility.

Thirdly, on the topic of "Royalty base", which I touched upon in my post on cellular FRAND royalty levels, the Federal Circuit made another good clarification. On apportionment and the "Entire Market Value Rule", it stated that according to the “substantive legal rule”, the “ultimate reasonable royalty award” – that is, the result of e.g. multiplying a royalty rate with a royalty base – ”must be based on the incremental value that the patented invention adds to the end product”. The Federal Circuit confirmed that to determine a (F)RAND royalty in the wireless industry, you are definitely not mandated to use the smallest salable component such as a chipset as a royalty base. There's nothing wrong with using the entire end-user product as royalty base, as long as reasonable apportionment of value of the patented invention to the end-user product is done.

The Federal Circuit's practical approach to SEP licensing and damages is encouraging. Hopefully other courts and agencies, including those in other jurisdictions, will follow suit and move away from theoretical calculations towards a focus on real world practices and evidence.