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. 

IEEE after the patent policy update

A number of technology-contributing IEEE members have now refused to be bound by the IEEE's new patent policy adopted in February 2015. The question is, what does that mean for the IEEE as a Standards Setting Organization (SSO)?

In my experience, the strength of the international competitive-collaborative style of telecommunications standardization - largely pioneered by ETSI - lies in the fact that individual technical contributions compete purely on technical merit. This means that the type of competence needed for the effort can be highly specialized; basically some of the very best research engineers in the field, from all over the world, get together to create these complex standards. This ensures cutting-edge, future proof, global standards.

This in turn is possible when the SSO's patent policy has been generally agreed by all members on a high level, and patent policy issues can therefore effectively be "removed" from the daily standardization work itself. Those specialist engineers can focus all their efforts on inventing new clever solutions and arguing about the technical pros and cons of each other's proposals. And importantly, they can spend zero time thinking about patent policy.

But in the IEEE today we have a fragmented situation where a subset of its members have publicly stated that they will not adhere to the IEEE's new patent policy. Here some readers may of course wonder why those members aren't then simply "thrown out" of the IEEE's SSO work? But actually, in order to make the work of an SSO - not only the IEEE - as inclusive as possible, contributors are allowed to declare on a case by case basis which patent policy their patented contribution would be licensed under, which in fact does not have to be the policy adopted by the SSO. It's just that the norm has typically been that all members have agreed with the SSO's policy. But in the IEEE we now have an anomaly. The existence of these "disagreeing members" creates some distinct challenges to the IEEE's standardization effort going forward, at least within 802.11 ("WiFi") standardization.

Prior to the new policy's acceptance in Feb 2015, disagreeing members had submitted - and the IEEE had accepted - certain so-called Letters of Assurance (LoA) endorsing the old IEEE policy for certain 802.11 standards. LoAs are documents describing under which conditions the submitter agrees to license its potential SEPs for a specified standard, i.e. essentially whether the existing IEEE patent policy is agreeable to the submitter or if another policy will be used instead. Now, with the assumption that accepted adherence to a given IEEE patent policy cannot be changed retroactively, SEPs relating to the IEEE standard(s) specified in those pre-Feb-2015 LoAs will therefore be subject to two different patent policies - the old and new IEEE patent policy - depending on who owns the SEP in question.

Some of those standards are already finalized, and in those cases the impact will largely be limited to the licensing and dispute resolution spheres. However, some standards are still being worked on, meaning that there can be an impact within the SSO work itself. There could be an increased risk of proposals not being selected purely on technical merit, but potentially also based on whether the submitter supports the new or old IEEE patent policy. Thankfully, standardization/research engineers' natural behaviour is to focus on technical merit, but one still can't rule out that their management could convince them to behave differently. 

Furthermore, regarding potential SEPs for IEEE standards not specified in those pre-Feb-2015 LoAs, new LoAs would have to be submitted. But a disagreeing member submitting a new LoA would - by definition - tick the box stating its disagreement with the (new) IEEE policy. So at least if the disagreeing member's proposed solution would technically outsmart all other proposals, there's a potential issue to resolve. Assuming that technical merit continues to be the yardstick, that proposal should be selected for inclusion into the IEEE standard in question. But in this case the IEEE would instead have to examine the LoA and decide whether it would be acceptable or not. This would generally have to be done on a case-by-case basis. And if the LoA would not be acceptable to the IEEE's members, the technical proposal itself can't be accepted. Or in other words, the admittedly best technical solution would have to be actively de-selected from the standard (!). 

There has been some speculation as to whether Qualcomm - one of the disagreeing members - could benefit from its recent acquisition of Cambridge Silicone Radio (CSR) in the sense that CSR had made a "broader than usual" pre-Feb-2015 blanket LoA covering all IEEE 802.11 (WiFi) standards. Qualcomm could then allegedly utilize the CSR LoA to license also its future SEPs according to the old IEEE policy at least for all future versions of WiFi. If so, it would at least save Qualcomm from having to make those new "potentially difficult" LoAs for IEEE 802.11. While that could reduce the probability of its proposals being rejected due to origin, the risk will still be there given that Qualcomm, after all, doesn't adhere to the new IEEE policy. 

Clearly, scenarios as described above threaten to remove the "pure technical bliss" of the classic international competitive-collaborative standardization effort within the IEEE. There may now have to be more patent engineers and patent attorneys involved in the SSO work processes. The efficiency of the IEEE as an SSO will likely suffer, and alarmingly, the IEEE's future standards run the risk of not containing the best technology out there. Even worse, the best technology may have been made available to the IEEE, who then actively rejected it. If such fears materialize, some companies might very well leave the IEEE and instead support - or perhaps even create - other competing standards through other means.

The new IEEE patent policy's apparent disconnect with the law is problematic. Only last week in its CSIRO vs Cisco appeal decision, the US Federal Circuit squarely rejected one of the key principles of the new policy, namely the mandatory chipset royalty base. In the same breath, the Federal Circuit re-emphasized the importance of evidence in the form of comparable licenses, also in stark contrast to the new policy. We also know that the new policy's rule on injunctive relief in practice also differs from Federal Circuit opinion. 

The IEEE, and ultimately the general public, would surely benefit the most if the IEEE stays strong and relevant, capable of efficiently creating top-notch standards going forward. So perhaps it's time for a pragmatic and open discussion among IEEE members with the aim to consolidate the different viewpoints in the light of the law. Another update of the policy may very well be needed to put the IEEE's standardization work back on track again.

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.

On the draft IEEE patent policy

IPR policies of telecoms Standardization Setting Organizations (SSOs) mainly define how patents that become part of the standard should be treated, typically through the principle of a (F)RAND ((Fair), Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory) licensing commitment. These policies have been in place for many years, decades even, but are quite naturally subject to reviews from time to time. In spite of such reviews and occasional calls for more regulatory content though, the policies are more often than not left largely unchanged.

This likely demonstrates that the original policies continue to serve the market rather well. Quite some wide-ranging thought and foresightedness have gone into them in order to carefully accommodate the diverse and complex interests of users and innovators of advanced communication technologies in the marketplace. And ultimately, to make the standards commercially successful in the long-term.

However, a radical IPR policy change is now underway within the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), an SSO responsible for numerous standards including "WiFi", or IEEE 802.11 as it's formally known. Since last year, a proposal for an update of the patent policy of the IEEE Standards Board Bylaws is being worked on by the IEEE-SA (IEEE Standards Association), a body within the IEEE responsible for standards. Compared to previous IPR policies of telecoms SSOs, this proposal is very detailed and far-reaching. At least to me it also gives the impression of being aimed at significantly changing how wireless SEP licensing will work in the future. Let's take a detailed look.

To begin with, the policy states that the determination of a "reasonable rate" for a SEP "should" consider (emphasis added):

a) "the value that the functionality of the claimed invention or inventive feature within the Essential Patent Claim contributes to the value of the relevant functionality of the smallest saleable Compliant Implementation that practices the Essential Patent Claim" (emphasis added),

b) "the value that the Essential Patent Claim contributes to the smallest saleable Compliant Implementation that practices that claim, in light of the value contributed by all Essential Patent Claims for the same IEEE Standard practiced in that Compliant Implementation" (emphasis added)

[and]

c) "existing licenses covering use of the Essential Patent Claim, where such licenses were not obtained under the explicit or implicit threat of a Prohibitive Order, and where the circumstances and resulting licenses are otherwise sufficiently comparable to the circumstances of the contemplated license" (emphasis added).

Requirements a) and b) appear to mandate how the apportionment of the invention's value should be done. The phrase "smallest saleable compliant implementation" must reasonably mean a component or sub-assembly within the end-product, and in my mind the so-called "chip-set" might well be a likely candidate for this. The invention's value to such a component only is all that shall be considered. As I touched upon in my previous post on cellular FRAND royalty levels, this is actually not in line with how damages for patent infringement are, or should be, judged by courts. Indeed, as the US Federal Circuit recently clarified in the D-Link case, it's the value of the patented invention to the end-product that is the yardstick. In clarifying 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” (emphasis added). Thus, mandating SEP value apportionment to consider only a component within the end-product is not the law.

Requirement c) is even more remarkable. This is because ever since the patent system was created, all licenses - including (F)RAND SEP licenses - have by definition been obtained "under the explicit or implicit threat of a prohibitive order". I say "by definition" because this is quite simply the basic legal right of a patent holder, a right to exclude. And as I elaborated in an earlier post, (F)RAND doesn't change this per se. So in other words, c) simply says that none of the WiFi licenses in existence at the time of adoption of this new IPR policy may be used as a reference for any new WiFi licenses. This "purging" of the historical record of WiFi licenses seems intended to "cement" the component value apportionment mandated by a) and b). Presumably because the royalty considerations of those preexisting licenses may have been based on the value that the SEP portfolio brings to the end-product rather than to a component within. 

Interestingly, in the above-mentioned D-Link case, the defendant argued for disqualification of existing license evidence on those very grounds, but the Federal Circuit rejected this: "In short, where expert testimony explains to the jury the need to discount reliance on a given license to account only for the value attributed to the licensed technology, as it did here, the mere fact that licenses predicated on the value of a multi-component product are referenced in that analysis—and the district court exercises its discretion not to exclude such evidence—is not reversible error."  In fact, licenses "predicated on the value of a multi-component product" are perfectly normal in practical wireless SEP licensing. And incidentally, they're also in harmony with the law.

To me, a), b) and c) seem to be specifically designed to usher in a brand new era of very low royalty rates for WiFi. Clause c) makes all old licenses irrelevant as references. And clauses a) and b), while not necessitating it, certainly encourage a significant lowering of the absolute royalty rate by mandating consideration of the SEP's value to (at most) the chip-set only, thus creating a low-product-value bias with regards to the absolute royalty. I'm not sure how much support there will be for such a change, but it's not in line with what the US Federal Circuit has said about the law.  

However, there's more of interest in the proposed new IEEE patent policy, relating to prohibitive orders:

"An accepted ...[RAND licensing commitment] ... precludes seeking, or seeking to enforce, a prohibitive order except as provided in this policy." (emphasis added),

where "as provided in this policy" means:

"The submitter of ... [a RAND licensing commitment]... agrees that it shall neither seek nor seek to enforce a prohibitive order ...unless the implementer fails to participate in, or to comply with the outcome of an adjudication, including an affirming first-level appellate review, if sought by any party within applicable deadlines..." (emphasis added).

At first glance, this actually looks a bit similar to the process used e.g. in the US Federal Trade Commission's Consent Order in the Google/Motorola case. As a potential "softer" means to combat the very destructive"patent-holdout" behaviour, I myself saw that as a quite interesting path. However, when looking more in detail at the wording, it doesn't look like that's the purpose here. The phrase "an adjudication, including an affirming first-level appellate review" gives the distinct impression that an affirming first-level appellate review is actually a requirement. This makes it quite a different story from the quoted US FTC process. Unless I misunderstood the phrase, the whole thing looks like an attempt to in practice ban prohibitive orders altogether in SEP portfolio cases. Of course, also this is something that the Federal Circuit has clearly declared an error, as I mentioned in my earlier post on portfolio licensing and patent hold-out.

So overall I'd say that the patent policy changes proposed by IEEE-SA represent large steps in wrong, unmotivated and even unsupportable directions. What appears to be a ban on prohibitive orders is not in line with US Federal Circuit precedent and would only worsen the patent hold-out problem and put artificial downwards pressure on royalty rates. The mandating of value apportionment based on only a component and the explicit disqualification of old license agreements as references also don't align themselves with Federal Circuit precedent. When stripped down to its bare essentials, the proposal looks rather like a path-clearing for a drastic cut of the absolute SEP royalty level for WiFi.

But isn't that good? Well if it had been shown that there was a clear problem with royalties being too high, affecting the market in negative ways, then the IPR policy could definitely be in need of a review and as a consequence possibly even an update. But evidence of concrete problems to that effect yet remain to be demonstrated. We can again look at the D-Link case, a case that was specifically about SEP licensing for the IEEE standard 802.11 ("WiFi") and which involved several prominent implementers of that standard. The Federal Circuit confirmed that no evidence of royalty stacking or patent hold-up - two phenomena sometimes claimed to create 'too high' SEP royalties - was presented and that they should never be presumed to exist just because they are theoretical possibilities: "The district court need not instruct the jury on hold-up or stacking unless the accused infringer presents actual evidence of hold-up or stacking. Certainly something more than a general argument that these phenomena are possibilities is necessary. Indeed,“a court should not instruct on a proposition of law about which there is no competent evidence.""

There are others who have questioned the purpose of this new proposed policy. For example, the IEEE USA board (!) recently sent a letter to the IEEE board, straightforwardly asking for an explanation of exactly what's wrong with the existing patent policy and what concrete problems the new policy proposed by IEEE-SA is supposed to solve.

The SSO IPR policies set the delicate basis for achieving a long-term balance between incentive for innovation and incentive for implementation. This balance is for the common good of technological innovation, a healthy marketplace for implementers, and ultimately consumer choice. However, it seems to me that in the new draft patent policy for IEEE, shorter-term business interests of implementers may have been allowed to take on rather more weight than they should have. To my knowledge, no obvious market need has been demonstrated for any of the changes proposed. Nor is there any legal mandate for them and in fact, some changes even tend to run contrary with US Federal Circuit opinion.

To the extent that there's an actual need for an update of its patent policy, hopefully the IEEE will eventually come up with a more balanced proposal than the present one.