Injunctive relief - is a re-assessment of Ebay on the way?

In its Ebay vs. MercExchange ruling of 2006 ("Ebay"), the US Supreme Court basically concluded that injunctive relief shouldn't be automatically granted for patent infringement. Monetary damages was ruled to always constitute adequate compensation unless the patent holder could demonstrate that a rigorous four-factor test was fulfilled on all points. As a practical consequence of Ebay, it became more complicated for a patent holder to obtain injunctive relief or exclusion orders against infringing products in US courts after 2006.

While the gist of Ebay may perhaps have been to minimize NPEs' possibilities of obtaining unreasonable compensation, it may well have been blunt enough to negatively affect also true innovators as well as true competitors.

In wireless SEP FRAND licensing for example, the reverse patent hold-up behaviour seen among infringers in recent times may at least partly have been fueled by Ebay. And for non-SEPs, we can look at Apple. Since launching its iPhone in 2007, the Ebay ruling arguably hasn't made Apple's struggle to protect its patented smartphone-related inventions any easier.

However, a potential re-assessment of injunctive relief in US patent cases may now be on its way, incidentally in relation to an Apple case. On September 17, 2015, the US Federal Circuit overturned a district court's denial of injunctive relief in Apple vs. Samsung.  The original request was for a feature-based injunction against multi-function products, to which mobile phones arguably belong, and the overturn could actually be seen as a slight softening of Ebay. The main point of discussion related to the first Ebay factor concerning "irreparable harm" and establishing a "causal nexus" between the patented feature and consumers' decision to purchase the multi-function product in question. 

Interestingly, on December 16, 2015, the Federal Circuit denied Samsung's request for an en banc revisit of the issue, and issued a revised opinion along with the order. This seems to indicate that the Federal Circuit's stance is becoming solidified. On the "causal nexus" requirement, it says:

"In short, the record establishes that the features claimed in [the patents] were important to product sales and that customers sought these features in the phones they purchased. While this evidence of irreparable harm is not as strong as proof that customers buy the infringing products only because of these particular features, it is still evidence of causal nexus for lost sales and thus irreparable harm. Apple loses sales because Samsung products contain Apple’s patented features.The district court therefore erred as a matter of law when it required Apple to show that the infringing features were the reason why consumers purchased the accused products. Apple does not need to establish that these features are the reason customers bought Samsung phones instead of Apple phones–it is enough that Apple has shown that these features were related to infringement and were important to customers when they were examining their phone choices." (emphasis in original),

and in the conclusion part of the opinion one can almost sense some underlying "frustration" with Ebay: 

"If an injunction were not to issue in this case, such a decision would virtually foreclose the possibility of injunctive relief in any multifaceted, multi-function technology.".

The Federal Circuit's stance seems quite reasonable to me. If a company invents a feature for a multi-function product that's attractive to consumers and implements that feature in its own multi-function products, shouldn't it have the legal right to, for a limited time-period, prevent others from implementing that very feature in their directly competing multi-function products? I don't really see such a right as being too far-fetched, given the definition of what a patent really is.

If Samsung wants to avoid an injunction, it now looks like a Supreme Court petition would be needed. This story will surely be interesting to follow.

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.

Apple and Ericsson - a first look

On January 12, 2015, Apple filed a complaint in the US District Court for the Northern District of California asking for a declaratory judgment that i) seven Ericsson US patents are not essential to 4G nor infringed by Apple or alternatively, if found essential and infringed, ii) the court sets reasonable royalties using a royalty base of "at most, the component that substantially embodies the alleged invention". It also asked the court to prevent Ericsson from seeking injunctive relief or exclusion orders based on the patents-in-suit.

Shortly after, Ericsson filed a complaint in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas asking for a declaratory judgement that i) Ericsson's global license offers have "complied with its FRAND commitment" and ii) Ericsson has "complied with its contractual obligations under its FRAND commitment".

There's been more filings in this dispute since, and of course there could be more to come. But in this post I'll specifically examine certain aspects of this first filing by Apple. There are some parts that I find interesting and related to what I have touched upon in previous posts. Also in relation to both of these first filings, I'll revisit the issue of SEP portfolio license valuation.

The first point in Apple's complaint concerns the "royalty base". Basically, a "royalty base" is the value of "something" that a royalty rate percentage is multiplied by, to arrive at a payable royalty for a licensed product. In its complaint, Apple argues that "the law requires" that the royalty base be selected as "(at most) the smallest salable unit", and explains that such a unit would correspond to "(at most) the baseband processor chip" inside its products. Apple further implies that the "current technological and legal environment" is one where this particular Apple opinion prevails, and that Ericsson has refused to "adapt" to it.

Let's first look at the law. The fundamental basis for US patent damages can be found in 35 USC 284, "...the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer..." (emphasis added). Clearly, there are no limitations of the type advanced by Apple to be found there.

So how about the "smallest salable unit"? Well, the phrase is actually part of the Entire Market Value Rule (EMVR) concept in US patent damages law. But Apple has embraced it in a completely out-of-context manner. The concept, as clarified only recently by the US Federal Circuit in Ericsson vs. D-Link in 2013, is only an "evidentiary principle" to be used to specifically assist a US layman jury to arrive at a reasonable royalty when there is a risk of it being misled (biased) by a higher end-product value. Moreover, in the very same breath the Federal Circuit made it crystal clear that i) licenses are "generally negotiated without consideration of the EMVR" and ii) the "substantive legal rule" is that the “ultimate reasonable royalty”– e.g. the result of multiplying a royalty rate and a royalty base–”must be based on the value that the patented invention adds to the end product” (emphasis added).

And if that's not enough, also the market has rejected Apple's position. It's an indisputable fact that the end-product selling price has been used as a royalty base in cellular SEP licensing for more than 20 years. That is, since more than a decade before Apple even got into the mobile phone business. During all those years, several hundreds, if not thousands, of cellular SEP license agreements were signed using precisely that royalty base.

If those hundreds of licenses would have been so clearly wrong, how could the world's legal systems - including the US legal system - have let such practices flourish for decades? Not to mention the tremendous global growth in the mobile phone business during those 20 years, from virtually zero to 7 billion mobile subscriptions and 2.5 billion devices sold annually today? All that, based on something that's basically against the law? I'm afraid I find that quite hard to believe.

Clearly, Apple's opinions about what "the law requires" and the "current legal environment" on the subject of royalty base do seem quite odd to say the least.

Moving now to the question about injunctive relief. Here Apple asked the court for "a ruling that Ericsson cannot seek injunctive relief or exclusion orders against Apple" based on any of the patents-in-suit found to be infringed and essential.

As I've mentioned before, there's no legal support whatsoever for banning the seeking of injunctive relief for infringement of SEPs. In fact, the US Federal Circuit in Apple vs. Motorola in 2014 could not have been clearer on this point: "To the extent that the district court applied a per se rule that injunctions are unavailable for SEPs, it erred." Indeed, "an injunction may be justified where an infringer unilaterally refuses a FRAND royalty or unreasonably delays negotiations to the same effect." Clearly, an SEP holder does have the right to seek an injunction and it's up to the court to decide on a case by case basis whether an injunction is warranted, based on e.g. whether the infringer is deemed to have engaged in patent hold-out. An actual hold-out situation can be very damaging to the SEP holder and especially to other willing and existing licensees, as I discussed in a specific post on that subject. This is presumably why the US Federal Circuit believes that an injunction may be appropriate in such cases.

So, like the royalty base issue, Apple's request about injunctions also seems out of touch with US law.

The last aspect I'll examine here is that of SEP portfolio license valuation, looking at both Apple's and Ericsson's filings.

Apple seems to view the entire issue from a patent-by-patent aspect, and asked the court for declaratory judgements on seven particular Ericsson patents in terms of essentiality and infringement, and assuming those are fulfilled, value.

Ericsson on the other hand appears to treat the issue as a SEP portfolio licensing effort, and asked the court to determine whether its terms for its entire worldwide alleged SEP portfolio as a whole - i.e. not just seven US patents - are to be considered FRAND.

So essentially we have two approaches pitted against each other; i) patent-by-patent license value adjudication and ii) global patent portfolio license value adjudication.

The patent-by-patent approach requested by Apple may be suitable when the matter at hand is a license to a limited explicit set of patents granted in the US. But that's really not the case here at all. The majority of Apple's sales are outside the US, and it sells tremendous volumes on every continent. And an SEP-holder like Ericsson surely has granted SEPs on every continent too. In addition, major standards-contributors tend to obtain new SEPs over time, adding to their portfolios. For at least these reasons, the license scope of the Apple-Ericsson negotiation preceding these court filings must have concerned a global SEP portfolio license. Anything else would have been highly inefficient if not irrational for companies such as these.

As I elaborated in an earlier post, when it comes to a license to a large global SEP portfolio, a  patent-by-patent, country-by-country approach to adjudication can never be a complete solution, and when pursued by an infringer it may in practice amount to a patent hold-out situation. Patent hold-out can in turn lead to the unreasonable result that the SEP-holder cannot efficiently enforce its SEP portfolio simply because it's so large.

Looking now at the "one-stop shopping" approach requested by Ericsson. It does have an obvious attraction point; it directly focuses on the very topic of the actual negotiation between the parties - the value of a license to a global SEP portfolio. And in cases where significant databases of existing license agreements to the very same global SEP portfolio are available as references, this approach should have the potential to be both efficient and fair. In particular if the vast majority of those existing license agreements have been negotiated in good-faith without litigation, something we know is generally true for SEP portfolio licensing. So if Ericsson's public statements about having "more than 100 patent-licensing agreements in place" are to be believed, this case should surely qualify for this approach.

In recent times the "one-stop-shopping" approach has indeed gained support from courts and agencies worldwide. In Microsoft vs Motorola in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington, although some dubious calculation methodology was used as I've mentioned earlier, the court did in fact determine a global FRAND rate to Motorola's SEP portfolio. And the “Request for a FRAND Determination” process endorsed by the US Federal Trade Commission in the consent degree of Motorola vs Google also expressly concerned a global SEP portfolio license. Even the Chinese National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) in 2014 imposed a similar process on InterDigital for a global SEP portfolio license.

Concluding this review of the initial filings of Apple and Ericsson, I find the argumentation coming from Apple surprisingly unconvincing so far. Its arguments about royalty base and injunctions seem to be at odds not only with US law - including recent US Federal Circuit opinion - but also with decades of regular SEP-portfolio licensing. So for Apple's sake, one would hope that it comes up with some better argumentation as the case continues. Furthermore, the global license value adjudication sought by Ericsson seems to be rather more appropriate for the case at hand - a global SEP portfolio license - as compared to the patent-by-patent approach initiated by Apple.

Cellular FRAND royalty levels

What's a fair and reasonable royalty for a cellular Standards Essential Patent (SEP) portfolio license, and how is it determined? This sounds like a simple enough question, but actually it's not. In this post I'll share some of my experiences and thoughts in relation to this much debated subject.

To tackle this subject, I believe one should start by assessing values. Let's first look at the value of the cellular standard to a mobile phone. To say that the cellular standard itself is absolutely crucial for a mobile phone is hardly controversial. In fact, the cellular capability defines the phone as a commercial product: an iPhone wouldn't be an iPhone without cellular capability. Apple is able to sell its iPhone at a price of several hundred US$ more (!) than the price of its iPod, a very similar product but without cellular capability. This price difference demonstrates the tremendous value of adding standardized cellular technology to an otherwise similar device.

So yes, the cellular standard is definitely fundamental to a mobile phone. But what about a cellular SEP portfolio, what's the value of that? Before looking at a given SEP portfolio though, let's start by considering the cumulative. What's the license value of all SEP portfolios taken together. After all, that's the ultimate concern of the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) selling the product. How is this "total mass" of cellular SEP portfolios related to the standard?

To address those questions, let's first assume that we'd like to create a brand new cellular 5G standard as a successor to 4G, but - for whatever reason - we want it to be completely void of SEPs. What could that correspond to in practice? Well, since patents live for up to 20 years, only standardized technical solutions older than 20 years would be completely "safe" to include. So we might actually end up selecting the first (1990) version of GSM (2G) as our 5G standard. This certainly feels like a very bad idea indeed. But why exactly? Because a 2G standard can't possibly fulfil the technical requirements placed on a 5G standard. The example might seem a bit extreme, but I want to illustrate an important point. The value of a standard strongly relates to new pieces of technology added to it. This is because a new cellular standard is subject to more harsh technical requirements - with respect to supported data rates, delay, capacity, flexibility, new services, efficient data compression and so on -  than previous standards. Having own experience from standardization, I know that these new requirements are there to make the new standard as future-proof as possible. While many consumers may accept to change phones quite often, mobile network operators make tremendous investments in infrastructure and will hardly be amused about having to replace it after only a couple of years because it's gone obsolete. In order to fulfil these tougher requirements of a new standard, brand new technological innovations are very often required, and these are also typically patented. So, while all cellular SEP portfolios together may not be strictly equivalent to the standard itself, they represent the value of the standard since they include the technologies that allow the standard to fulfil its specific requirements.

So how about the license value of all cellular SEP portfolios in terms of actual money? And who decides it for that matter? Here I'd first like to point out that the consequences of "wrong" pricing can be tremendous. If too high, then consumer demand will suffer. If too low, then incentives for standards innovation will suffer. But in fact, we can all see mobile device sales and usage expanding strongly and new state-of-the-art standards continuing to be created. So clearly, the market must have somehow managed to settle at a balanced pricing. But at what level? In my experience from working with cellular SEP licensing for quite some time, I can see an established cumulative royalty cost for all cellular standards up to 4G somewhere around 10% of the OEM selling price of a mobile phone. Note that this is not my opinion of what it "should" be. This is the reality that I see.

I'd like to make two important comments in relation to this 10% figure:

1) High-end phones often have advanced screens, cameras etc. that may be argued to be unrelated to the cellular standard. According to such argument, the percentage-principle leads to an unfairly high royalty for these products. But in reality, those attributes actually increase the usage of the cellular standard. In fact, the 3G and 4G standards were even specifically developed with the performance of such devices in mind. So the value of at least 3G and subsequent standards - and hence of all SEP portfolios relevant to those - is higher for high-end phones. Nevertheless, high-end phones are still often subject to "royalty caps" in order to address the perceived concern. Conversely, at the other end of the spectrum, the percentage-principle may cause very-low-end phones to devalue SEP portfolios. In such cases "royalty floors" may be used as well.

2) Most major SEP-holders are practicing entities, i.e. they sell standards-compliant products themselves. When such an SEP-holder offers a license to its SEP portfolio to an OEM, it typically also needs a license to the OEM's SEP portfolio. This is known as a "grant-back" license. In these cases, there will be a "royalty-netting" effect. One party pays a net royalty to the other based on their respective SEP portfolio strengths and net product sales. Therefore, SEP-holding OEMs ultimately pay a lower net cumulative royalty rate than non-SEP-holding OEMs. Importantly, this is not a violation of the Non-Discriminatory ("ND") part of FRAND since the value of a license is transferred back in place of some royalties. An OEM either makes large investments in basic R&D - resulting in innovations and patents - or pays full license fees. After all, there are no free lunches. 

Some OEMs new to the market have recently started to argue that the cumulative royalty should instead be no more than a fraction of the cost of a "baseband chip". This is a component inside the mobile phone that includes cellular connectivity functions. Such a change would actually make the cumulative royalty about an order of magnitude lower than what it is today. This argument doesn't make sense to me because it doesn't go to the value of using the cellular connectivity, but rather to the cost of a component necessary for that connectivity. Patent damages, i.e. the royalties determined by a court, are based on the value for the use made of the invention (e.g. in the US according to 35 USC 284).

As a parallel, one could look at a movie DVD. The entire component and manufacturing cost is probably no more than US$0.50. Yet nobody would seriously argue that the IPR value for the product as a whole, including the movie script, production, direction, screenplay, music, acting and so on, should be a fraction of that amount. It's the value of the IPR to the end product that's important. Arguing for a 90% de-valuation of cellular SEPs when there's been an established and well-working SEP valuation regime in place for decades seems irrational to me and would certainly disrupt the market balance, and for sure not in favour of innovation.

Having discussed the cumulative royalty at some length, I can now return to the original question: What's a fair and reasonable royalty for a given cellular SEP portfolio license, and how is it determined? Or in other words, how much should a given SEP-holder obtain within the cumulative budget and how is that fraction actually decided?

Most market participants agree that there has to be some form of proportionality at play here, in keeping with general principles of fairness and reasonableness. SEP-holders with "stronger" portfolios are entitled to larger royalty fractions. But using what metric? Counting SEPs? Valuing the SEP portfolios in terms of "innovation value"? This is not an easy question. Still, the actors in the market - the SEP-holders and established OEMs - over time "get to know" the overall value of each other's portfolios. They do this through license negotiations as well as by gaining knowledge of each others' R&D, standardization activities and patenting quality. The main challenge arises for someone who's inexperienced with this market.

Take as an example a willing licensee OEM new to the market and without standardization involvement or SEPs. It needs to allocate around 10% of its product price to cellular SEP license royalties, but how does it determine the fractions? Are there ways to find at least estimates of the distribution of those 10%? Well there are indeed some commonly discussed methods, which I'll briefly explain here:

1) ETSI IPR database declarations
Due to its apparent simplicity, it's very tempting to look at various patent holders' SEP declarations on ETSI's IPR database and to estimate royalty fractions based on them. However, such results are actually totally unreliable, since neither the declarer nor ETSI has any obligation to verify essentiality. The original purpose of the database was to ensure that there would be no hidden surprises in terms of unknown patents turning up at a later stage as SEPs. For this reason, patents "believed" to be essential could be declared, even though they might turn out not to be. As a result, significant over-declaration regularly takes place. This leads to gross over-estimates of the total SEP holdings and distorts the distribution of SEPs. So at best, this kind of study may be used to get a picture of potential SEP-holders rather than estimates of actual SEP holders' relative fractions.

2) Third party evaluations
Some instead turn to SEP evaluations performed by third parties. Unfortunately many such evaluations tend to be based on "keyword searches" in patent databases, which make them about as useful as horoscopes. More serious evaluation attempts actually try to look at the patent claims in some detail and compare them to the standard. Although those evaluations could in principle give indications of actual SEP-holder fractions, they also tend to suffer from reliability restrictions. Besides the obvious concern of bias, their accuracy is also limited due to time and cost constraints in combination with the large mass of potential SEPs to go through.

3) Accepted standards contributions
A newer method, originally explored by Ericsson, is not to look at patents at all (!), but instead at "accepted standards contributions" to the 3GPP standardization process. That essentially refers to technical solution proposals accepted into the standard. It's assumed that this metric has a strong correlation with SEP-ownership over time and that significant standards contributors all have similar "patenting rates" and "patenting quality". Since these assumptions are actually quite reasonable and the contribution data is all publicly available, this method is potentially accurate. Interestingly, it also aligns itself with incentivizing technical contributions to the standard. However, with this method becoming more widely used, its accuracy may suffer in the longer term since some standards-participants can be tempted to make numerous proposals on relatively trivial technical solutions solely to increase their "accepted contribution rate".

In practice though, these kinds of estimations are mainly used only as tools to roughly gauge the SEP portfolio landscape. Our new OEM will obtain the most accurate information about the SEP-holders' portfolios and FRAND royalty requests simply by conducting licensing negotiations with different SEP-holders in parallel. In this way the OEM can scrutinize the different SEP portfolios down to whatever detail it sees fit. This may be done through examining and discussing so-called claim-charts detailing the patents' relation to the standard in question. If needed, OEMs sometimes even employ external experts for such evaluations. Over time, these negotiations typically do result in a fair and reasonable royalty partitioning.

In this context I'd also like to point out that OEMs don't always fully appreciate the restrictions that the non-discriminatory ("ND") part of FRAND places on the SEP-holder. Many SEP holders have a multitude of already signed SEP portfolio license agreements in place and simply can't discriminate against existing licensees in favour of a new OEM. It's also inappropriate for a new OEM to compare itself with unwilling licensees - i.e. those essentially not wanting to pay anything - in terms of how much royalty it should pay. Doing so further exacerbates the "patent hold-out" problem discussed in my previous post.

In this post I've tried to describe the realities surrounding cellular SEP royalty levels for mobile phones, based on my own SEP licensing experience. Under the FRAND regime, I believe that the market has managed to strike a balance between innovation value and consumer value and established a cumulative royalty rate at around 10% of the mobile phone OEM selling price for all cellular standards up to 4G. I'm aware that some still believe that cumulative royalty rates are too high, that there's too much litigation going on and that radical changes to the system are urgently needed. I'll end this post by addressing these issues one by one.

Are cumulative royalty rates "too high"? I can't really tell for sure, but at least I don't see any obvious support for that notion. As I mentioned in an earlier post, consumer choice and new future-proof cellular standards hardly seem to be lacking. Also, among the top-10 global mobile phone OEMs of today, virtually none of them had sold a single mobile phone only a decade ago, and some of them didn't even exist a that time. So at least entry barriers are low. Margins may be getting lower for some OEMs, but that can be an effect of fierce global competition thanks to those low entry barriers (!) and perhaps partly even the result of patent hold-outs, i.e.some other OEMs paying  - ironically - too low (i.e. zero) cumulative royalties.

Is there "too much litigation"? Well, with some high-profile litigation cases going on in recent times, one might think that most cellular SEP portfolio license negotiations end up in court. But actually, this is a classic example of an availability error - "if you see it, it must be common". The truth is that most such negotiations are successfully concluded in good faith, far from the limelight, and only a small fraction end up in court. Actually, the most visible litigation case, Apple-Samsung, is fundamentally not about SEPs at all but rather about Apple's attempts to protect its proprietary smartphone user interface functions.

Are changes to "the system" needed? Well no system is perfect, so improvements are always needed. For example, new ideas for improving the transparency of the various fractional ownerships of the total SEPs could be welcomed, especially by new OEMs.  But I can't see an obvious need for any radical changes, since the FRAND technology sharing regime largely works the way it's supposed to work. Policies should continue to encourage successful cellular SEP portfolio licensing through good faith FRAND negotiations, which is still the norm today as it has been for decades. It's important that the cumulative rate and SEP portfolio proportionality principles are respected by all market participants. Any policy adjustments should work within the current framework and in a balanced way continue to make sure that it's difficult for individual SEP-holders to seek too much royalty as well as for OEMs to hold out for too little royalty.