Who needs a license to standard essential patents?

Having recently discussed some specific court cases and hot topics, I thought it might be time for a more generic post on licensing concepts and principles. Specifically, I'd like to talk about what I call the "licensing point" for patents in general and Standard Essential Patents (SEP) in particular. Simply put, I'll try to answer the question; "Who needs an SEP license"?

By "licensing point" I mean "the entity among several entities in a product value-chain that obtains a patent license for making or selling products". We know that in the case of mobile phones, the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) - the entity that puts a ready-to-use end-product on the market with a brand name belonging or licensed to it - is the SEP licensing point. In this post I'll discuss why this so, and also whether it's likely to stay that way going forward. 

Generally speaking, the licensing point is ultimately selectable by the patent holder, and could be virtually any entity in the value chain whose product encompasses the inventions covered by the licensed patents. It could be the end-product OEM, a component manufacturer or an entity in-between those. It could even be a point downstream from the OEM, like a whole-seller or a high-street- or Internet retailer. The royalty parameters just need to be properly adjusted in every case to reflect the ultimate license value to the end-product. For sure there can be practical complications in implementing some of these licensing points, but they should be perfectly permissible per se.

But that's more of a theoretical observation, now let's look at specifics. As stated, the OEM happens to be the cellular SEP licensing point. But why is that exactly? As it turns out, there are several reasons. 

We can start with a simple historical reason. Up until the end of the 1990's, the only OEMs that existed on the mobile device market were all vertical OEMs. So in fact there was only one possible licensing point.

So that was easy. But as we know today, this market structure changed a lot since then, so an interesting question is why the licensing point did not change with it. 

Indeed, the mobile device industry went through a structural change during the first decade of this century. From consisting of only a handful of vertical OEMs, it became more diverse, including a value-chain of specialized entities. This change was initially led by Qualcomm on the chipset level and further downstream by Taiwanese "notebook ODMs". 

  

However, in spite of increased specialization, some vertical or near-vertical OEMs still remained and new ones even emerged. Today there are pure mobile device vertical OEMs (Samsung, LG), pure infrastructure vertical OEMs (Alcatel-Lucent, Ericsson, Nokia) and combined mobile device and infrastructure vertical OEMs (Huawei), all doing pretty well in the marketplace. These companies have substantial in-house knowledge and control of the chain from components or chip-sets all the way down to the manufactured finalized product. So to maintain that position there's a need for these OEMs to invest rather heavily in R&D and standardization, which in turn will also generate SEP portfolios.

Now, for all such SEP-holding OEMs, an interesting question arises; would it be appropriate for the mobile device SEP licensing point to move upstream from the OEM level to e.g. the chipset manufacturer level?

While such a move might seem plausible at first glance, it could lead to complications. To understand this, let's first look at a hypothetical example scenario, but using real-world entities for ease of explanation. Take a SEP-holding mobile device OEM like Samsung. Assume that Samsung would license its SEP portfolio at a point upstream from the OEM level, let's say to chipset maker Mediatek.
Now as long as another SEP-holding OEM, for example Huawei, located downstream from Mediatek would not assert its SEP portfolio against Samsung, this would be just fine. But if it would - and it likely would because Huawei would have a FRAND commitment as an SEP holder - then Samsung might have reasons for concern. In the example scenario, while Samsung needs an SEP license from Huawei, things are not as obvious regarding Huawei's need of an SEP license from Samsung. In many jurisdictions, Samsung's license to Mediatek can be seen as inherently providing certain rights to Huawei under Samsung's patents, for products that include Mediatek's chipsets. So in effect, Samsung's license to Mediatek could limit its own defenses against an SEP portfolio assertion by Huawei against Samsung's products.

However, if Samsung would instead continue to consistently license the last point in the chain -  in this example Huawei - then no such issue would occur. Then Samsung could procure a maximally efficient SEP portfolio cross-license with Huawei because it's 100% clear that Huawei needs a full license from Samsung, regardless of what chipsets happen to reside in its products. This so-called "grant-back" issue is one reason why the cellular SEP licensing point prevails at the OEM level also in today's more specialized world.

Now those particular companies were used only as examples, and I don't know the real licensing situations among them. But the example illustrates that at least as long as there remain SEP-holding mobile and/or infrastructure OEMs - which tend to be verticals - generally healthy and successful in the global marketplace, this will be a continuing factor that tends to keep the SEP licensing point for mobile devices at the OEM level.

But there are also other reasons for the OEM being the licensing point. Like the issue of "patent value apportionment". A license to an SEP portfolio needs to be priced based on the value the technical inventions therein bring to the end-product. In US law this has been made clear in e.g. the well-known CSIRO vs. Cisco and Ericsson vs. D-Link et. al. cases. And the easiest point to observe the value the inventions bring to the end-product is - not surprisingly - at the end-product level, i.e. the OEM level.

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. 

As I mentioned in another post, the price difference not only illustrates the tremendous value of adding standardized cellular technology to an otherwise similar device. It also indicates the value of a license to the SEP portfolios covering it. Due to the way standards are created, the SEP portfolios covering a standard include those innovative technologies that won the competitive race to allow that particular standard to fulfil its specific requirements. Therefore the accumulation of SEP portfolios for a standard do in fact drive the value of the standard itself.

The market has established the accumulated SEP portfolio license value for a mobile device to be somewhere close to 10% of the OEM selling price of the end-product. This is a fraction of the value the standard itself brings to the end-product, but also more than the cost of a chipset. Clearly, when component suppliers don't account for SEP license costs, the component prices don't reflect the value of SEP portfolio licenses to the end-product at all. Another way of viewing this is that if the licensing point would hypothetically move to the chipset level, the chipset cost would have to increase many-fold. That may seem odd at first, but remember that this is accounting for the value to the end-product.

There are some recent and quite loud voices in the industry that - notably without rational or legal support - advocate that basing wireless SEP license royalties on end-product price is "non-FRAND", and that such royalties "must" be based on the chipset value. Actually, such calls are not always explicitly about moving the licensing point to the chipset level per se. Indeed, licensing point and royalty base are separate things. With the licensing point kept at the OEM level, a chipset value royalty base could still be possible in principle, by setting the royalty rate to some hundreds of percent. Ultimately, the royalty base is just a parameter in a certain calculation model, and what matters in the end is the value to the end-product. 

Another related factor driving the OEM licensing point is that the value of the standard may be different for different end-products. Since the value of licenses to the accumulation of SEP portfolios is proportional - but not equal - to the value of the standard, the license value can also vary between different end-products. For a mobile phone the value is very obviously large, but there are end-products for which the value might be considered smaller. For a vending machine or utility meter for example, the standardized cellular connectivity - and a license to all patented inventions therein - might for various reasons not necessarily be considered as tremendously valuable as for a mobile phone. Now if the licensing point would be moved to the chipset level, there'd be an issue with chipset tracability, or rather the lack of it. In fact, chipset manufacturers don't always know what type of end-product their chipsets ultimately end up in. Consequently it can be hard to determine the appropriate end-product license value at the chipset level. 

In this post, I've outlined some rational reasons for why SEP-holding OEMs conclude SEP portfolio licenses at the end-product OEM level. While it's certainly possible that this might change in the future, my guess is that some factors that make it rational to keep the licensing point at the OEM level will prevail for some time to come.

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.

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.

Royalty stacking

I'll begin by sharing some thoughts around the concept of “royalty stacking”. This term is generally “buzzing around” in patent licensing circles, and is sometimes brought up as being a problem for Standards Essential Patent (SEP) licensing in the mobile wireless communications sector. In this context, "royalty stacking" basically means that manufacturers/sellers of standards-compliant products (whom I will call “OEMs”, Original Equipment Manufacturers) need to obtain licenses from several SEP holders, and the aggregate royalty then becomes the sum of the individual royalties paid to the different SEP holders.

So why does an OEM need several licenses in the first place? Well, it's a consequence of how the wireless standards are created. Different entities from the industry come together to research and create a standard in a way that's simultaneously collaborative and competitive. By competing on technical merit for the various solutions within the standard, this quite ingenious process promotes the overall creation of a widely accepted, state-of-the-art and future-proof standard. As a result of this, SEPs will also be generated, and each individual SEP covers a specific part of the standard. In other words, all SEPs are complementary and an OEM must therefore by necessity obtain licenses to all SEP portfolios in order to be fully licensed.

So the first thing to note is that royalty stacking is not a problem in itself. Royalty stacking naturally occurs as a logical consequence of the wireless standardization process.

I guess that those who talk about royalty stacking as a “problem” actually refer to a potential consequence of royalty stacking; namely the cumulative SEP license royalty fee becoming too high for an OEM to bear while maintaining a reasonable profit margin. In these circumstances, references are sometimes made to royalty rates published by various (alleged) wireless SEP holders. And if those “published rates” are added up, the cumulative figure can indeed look rather unappealing. In a recent working paper by Intel and law firm Wilmer Hale, precisely this approach was taken, leading them to conclude a theoretical wireless SEP stack of more than US$100 for a smartphone (!). For sure, I for one do expect the authors to be aware that such a figure has very little to do with reality.

Potential negative consequences of royalty stacking are surely valid concerns, but as is often the case, it's advisable to also consider actualities before drawing conclusions based on theoretical analysis.

So how to assess whether royalty stacking has led to problems or not in the mobile wireless business? To begin with, I'd suggest looking at some aspects of the actual wireless device market and the SEP licensing situation.

During the last 25 years of 2G to 5G wireless cellular standardization, the SEP licensing technology sharing process has been governed by the well-known FRAND (Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory) regime. Also during this time, there's been an exponential increase of wireless device sales, to the extent that there are now close to a mind-boggling two billion new devices sold annually. So from a consumer point of view, it's not easy to detect any actual prohibitive pricing effects resulting from “too high” cumulative SEP royalties. Looking at the mobile device businesses too, evidence of problems from SEP royalty stacking is not exactly abundant. Consider that the vast majority of the top OEMs today were hardly even in the business only a decade or so earlier (e.g. Samsung, Apple, HTC). And conversely, many of those that were highly successful back then - also traditionally strong SEP holders - are all but gone from the device business today (e.g. Ericsson, Siemens, Alcatel1). Regarding WiFi, considering that it's a more recent wireless standard, the market has similarly exploded and perhaps even more spectacularly than cellular. There's now WiFi connectivity in virtually every device around us, including game consoles, cameras, TVs and vehicles. At the very least, these market developments suggest a low entry-barrier, and for sure I see no suggestion of the wireless SEP royalty stack being too high; this reality might even support the notion of a too low royalty stack (!).

From my own experience of wireless SEP patent licensing, I'd say that serious OEMs with few or no own SEPs are typically well aware - through their own license negotiations with various SEP holders - that the cumulative wireless SEP royalty rates are in general reasonable. And for sure that they're nowhere near e.g. the sum of all “published rates”. 

It's also somewhat interesting to look at e.g. the Apple vs. Motorola case, where Apple apparently refused to be bound by a potential judicial order of FRAND royalty payment, when such order presumably would have considered e.g. the actual payable cumulative royalty. It seems to me that Apple might have had the opportunity to demonstrate any real royalty stacking problems, but chose not to do so. This could perhaps suggest that any such problems may not have been that overwhelming.
 
It's true that some significant OEMs are said to operate on much lower profit margins than Apple, and sometimes royalty stacking problems are blamed for OEM's profit margins even being "too low". However, this is far from obvious, as there can be many different reasons for low profit margins. In fact, low profit margins may - ironically - be at least partly due to some competing OEMs not obtaining necessary IPR licenses in the first place. By being unlicensed for prolonged periods of time, such OEMs may in effect compete unfairly in the market, potentially forcing legitimate OEMs to reduce their profit margins. The truth of the matter is that some OEMs enter the market without including necessary SEP license costs as part of their original business case. It might be initially tempting to see this as being “good” for consumers due to potentially lower prices, but it's actually detrimental in the longer term. It skews the market in favour of infringers and globally undermines incentives for investments into technological innovation. 

So while evidence of problems from royalty stacking do need to be taken seriously, it's not clear that we've actually seen any in reality. However, if courts, agencies and lawmakers would simply assume that there are such problems where there are in fact none, there could actually be a potential risk of royalties being set unfairly low (!). This could unjustifiably harm the market and cause R&D “disincentivization”, which in the longer term can lead to limitations on consumer choice. Because of this risk, allegations of royalty stacking problems should in my view always be properly scrutinized, wherever they may turn up. So how good are courts and agencies at scrutinizing? Well, it's a mixed bag it seems.

In the Ericsson vs. D-Link et. al. case, defendants brought up royalty stacking as being a problem and at one point argued that the stack could amount up to “$23.30”. There was a lot of argumentation on this, but the defendants ultimately failed to convince the court of any real evidence of harmful stacking. As a result the court dismissed their arguments. In this particular case, sound skepticism to alleged stacking problems was apparently clearly expressed by the court. I understand that this case is currently on appeal, but this particular observation from the court has not been challenged.

Looking at the case of Motorola vs. Microsoft, the court in that case did appear less critical of allegations of royalty stacking problems, and made assumptions in view of that. Consequently, it e.g. essentially capped the cumulative rate at the selected rate of the Via Licensing WiFi patent pool, even though the patent holder's and others' patents were not part of the pool, and inspite of concluding that patent pools tend to produce lower rates and that a rate higher than a pool rate could still be FRAND. In the Innovatio case, again in apparent consideration of alleged royalty stacking problems but without real evidence of such, the court chose to determine the FRAND rate ultimately based on the profit margin of a chip manufacturer. Although this touches on another topic - the question of a relevant royalty base - this choice of reference is in my opinion actually quite arbitrary. In these two cases courts appear to have presumed cumulative rates being "too high" without any convincing evidence to that effect, while still ultimately determining royalty rates based on such presumtions.

While SEP royalty stacking can potentially cause market disruption, claims of such problems should be thoroughly scrutinized to determine if they are genuine. After all, in the last 25 years, the wireless device market has seen a virtually astronomical development in terms of cutting-edge technology and standards development, consumer choice and successful new businesses. Some companies complain about negative effects of royalty stacking, but have been unable or unwilling to demonstrate any actual problems. Others may blame royalty stacking for low profit margins while reasons may rather be found elsewhere, including unlicensed price-cutting competitors. One may in fact wonder if "royalty stacking problems” is sometimes used as an argument to avoid paying what would in fact be perfectly fair and reasonable royalties for wireless SEP licenses.

For sure, SEP FRAND determination cases are often complex, and courts, agencies and lawmakers mostly do a formidable job in trying to bring clarity and fairness to the situation at hand. Even with good intentions though, less well-founded assumptions and theoretical models ought to be minimized in favour of looking at real facts and requiring entities to substantiate claims of problems resulting from royalty stacking. Otherwise, SEPs and ultimately R&D investments actually run the risk of being devalued without addressing any real problem.


 1 “Alcatel”-branded phones seen on the market today are by Chinese company TCL under trademark license from Alcatel-Lucent.