Standards and competition law Michael Adam DG Competition, European Commission (speaking in a personal capacity - the views expressed are not necessarily.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Some U.S. Legal Developments Relevant to Consumer & Copyright Law Professor Peter P. Swire Moritz College of Law The Ohio State University Amsterdam, IVR.
Advertisements

GREETINGS TO CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS FOR ICAIS POST QUALIFICATION COURSE VIDEO CONFERENCE FROM HYDERABAD 26 AUGUST 2005.
SOS Interop II Sophia Antipolis, September 20 and 21, 2005 IPRs and standards: some issues Richard Owens Director, Copyright E-Commerce Division Philippe.
Licensing Issues Research In Motion Limited ETSI IPRR#01 meeting January 2006.
Negotiating Technology License Agreements Tamara Nanayakkara.
Standard Essential Patents in Infringement Litigations - Orange-Book-Approach and latest developments Conference on Information Technology, Innovation.
Slide title minimum 48 pt Slide subtitle minimum 30 pt LICENSING AND TECH TRANSFER MAKING THE MOST OUT OF YOUR PATENT Gustav Brismark Vice President, Patent.
Seeking, and enforcing, an injunction by a patent-holder as an antitrust abuse ? The emerging picture in the EU Alison Jones University of Toronto Patent.
Footer text (edit in View : Header and Footer) The interface between Standards and IPRs The ETSI IPR Policy Dr. Michael Fröhlich ETSI Legal Adviser Copyright.
1 May 2007 Instructions for the WG Chair The IEEE-SA strongly recommends that at each WG meeting the chair or a designee: l Show slides #1 through #5 of.
The Political, Legal, and Regulatory Environments of Global Marketing Chapter 5.
The EU Microsoft case: refusal to supply Nicholas Banasevic DG Competition, European Commission (speaking in a personal capacity - the views expressed.
1 Anti-trust issues in standardisation bodies Nicholas Banasevic DG Competition, European Commission (Speaking in a personal capacity - the views expressed.
Speaking in a personal capacity - the views expressed are not necessarily those of the firm or any client. © 2007 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP.
The ECJ's Huawei/ZTE judgment (C-170/13) Thomas Kramler DG Competition, European Commission (The views expressed are not necessarily those of the European.
1 FRAND COMMITMENTS AND EU COMPETITION LAW Thomas Kramler European Commission, DG Competition (The views expressed are not necessarily those of the European.
1 Remedies under Article 82 EC Per Hellström DG Competition, European Commission (speaking in a personal capacity - the views expressed are not necessarily.
Efforts by two leading standards-setting organizations to clarify the effect of a F/RAND licensing commitment in connection with Standard-Essential Patents.
International Telecommunication Union New Delhi, India, December 2011 ITU Workshop on Standards and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Issues Utsab.
26/28/04/2014 – IP for Innovation HG Dynamic Use of Industrial Property for Innovation Growth, Competitiveness and Market Access Heinz Goddar Boehmert.
Slide title 70 pt CAPITALS Slide subtitle minimum 30 pt Standard essential patents And frand licensing – the need for a balanced approach Ulrika Wester,
Commission Vs. Microsoft: "Rights", "Wrongs" and Priorities for Economic Analysis Prof. Yannis Katsoulacos, Athens University of Economics and Business,
1 WIPO-KIPO-KIPA IP Panorama Business School, October 6 to 10, 2008 IP Strategies in Standards Setting Tomoko Miyamoto Senior Counsellor, Patent Law Section.
Competition Issues in Standard Setting: The New Horizontal Guidelines Simonetta Vezzoso, Trento University Trento University March 16, 2011.
Law in the Global Marketplace: Intellectual Property and Related Issues Hosted by: FRAND in Europe: Huawei vs ZTE decision.
Exclusionary Conduct in the Context of Standard Setting William E. Cohen Deputy General Counsel for Policy Studies U.S. Federal Trade Commission Views.
1 AIPPI Forum 2011 Hyderabad, India, 15 October AIPPI Forum 2011 Hyderabad, India, 15 October 2011 Standardisation and Software Protection Strategies.
ABA China Inside and Out September , Beijing The interface between competition law and intellectual property Nicholas Banasevic, DG Competition,
1 Hot Topics at the Interface of Intellectual Property and Competition Law Possible Antitrust Concerns Arising from Patent Pools ABA International Law.
View from the U.S. The Swing of the Pendulum in the Antitrust Focus to IPR Licensing in the SDO Context Lauren S. Albert AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP.
ITU Workshop on Standards and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) issues IPR in ICT standards View ’ s of the European Commission Anne Lehouck New Delhi,
Session 30: FRAND Licensing Disputes NJA Advanced Course on Commercial Matters Bhopal, India January 23, 2016 Richard Tan, Chartered Arbitrator, Singapore.
Exercise of IP rights as an abusive behaviour under EU antitrust law Christian Vollrath European Commission DG Competition 1.
Standards and competition policy EU-China Workshop on Application of Anti-monopoly Law in Intellectual Property Area Changsha, 11. – 12. March 2010 Peter.
Sangmin Song, Director, Anti-Monopoly Div., KFTC MRFTA & IP Rights 1.
1 Successful Technology Licensing: A Practical Guide.
Latonia Gordon Microsoft NJTIP 10 th Anniversary Symposium Chicago, March 7-8, 2013 The views expressed herein are solely those of the author; they should.
PHILIPPINE COMPETITION ACT
competition rules in inland transport
Skolkovo PRESENTATION
Dialogue on Competition Policy and Intellectual Property *
Legal Considerations ETSI Seminar © ETSI All rights reserved.
Peter Hoeltzenbein, General Policy Division, Bundeskartellamt
Global competition amongst Standard Setting Organizations (SSOs) LCII – TILEC Conference - Brussels May 30, 2017 Alfred Chaouat – Senior Vice President.
Competition Law and Cellphone Patents
EU Competition Rules for Technology Transfer Agreements
A balanced framework for the licensing of Standard Essential Patents
Introducing the UK Scholarly Communications Licence
IP and Knowledge Transfer EC activities
National Contact Points (NCP) Training
The new technology transfer regime More evolution than revolution
GS1 Industry & Standards Event October 2017 – Brussels, Belgium Transforming business together Session: Distributed Working Groups Time: 12:30.
COMPETITION ASSESSMENT of Laws and Regulations
Voluntary Codes and Standards
Arbitration – Telecoms Industry
“Revisiting Abuse of Dominance & IPRs: Emerging Jurisprudence of the Indian Competition Law” “Plenary 2: A comparative perspective to IPR and Competition:
Session 3: IPRs panel discussion
Itumeleng Lesofe Competition Commission South Africa
The new technology transfer regime
Huawei – broader context and implications
Standards and Patents in the CEN and CENELEC system
ICN Unilateral Conduct Workshop 2 November 2018, Stellenbosch Exclusivity rebates in a post-Intel world Massimiliano Kadar DG Competition, European.
“The View From the Corner of U.S. Competition Law and Patents”
The role of injunctions in FRAND proceedings – a UK perspective
Instructions for the WG Chair
Gil Ohana Cisco Systems Legal Department
Instructions for the WG Chair
Update on IP and Antitrust
Instructions for the WG Chair
Presentation transcript:

Standards and competition law Michael Adam DG Competition, European Commission (speaking in a personal capacity - the views expressed are not necessarily those of the European Commission) Please edit the Master Layout to include information specific to the presentation. For slides for the DG/DeputyDG, delete “[Directorate], [Unit]”. (1) Slides (i) View… Master… Slide Master, (ii) On the first slide, add the Conference, Venue and Date in the box in the top left corner, (iii) On both the first and second slides, in the bottom left text box, add the Directorate and Unit information, (iv) Close Master View (2) Handout pages (i) View… Master… Handout Master, (ii) In the bottom left text box, add the Directorate and Unit information, (iii) Close Master View (3) Notes pages (i) View… Master… Notes Master, (ii) In the bottom left text box, add the Directorate and Unit information, (iii) Close Master View

IP and competition law have the same goals No inherent conflict between IP and competition law Both share the same objective Consumer welfare and efficient resource allocation Both necessary to promote innovation Antitrust intervention is rare Standardisation creates a specific context at the intersection of IP and competition law

Standards bring benefits Globalising, knowledge-based economy More and more products have to work together Of particular importance in IT/communications Interoperability: avoids lock-in Follow-on innovation Enable competing implementations by multiple vendors

But there is an antitrust risk Group of companies decide on commonly agreed specifications (generally in a standards body) Can be a choice of one technology over another Technologies often covered by patents Different to how competition occurs ‘traditionally’ One-off choice between different technologies The technology that is chosen is the standard

May mean market power Depends on importance of standard in market i.e. is it commercially indispensable to comply? Depends on lock-in sunk costs network effects

May mean market power which would not have existed Depends on ex ante alternatives Relevance of «but for» scenario What would have happened ex ante is a good benchmark Strips out the ability to charge resulting from the standard Good indication of what a FRAND price is

How do you keep the benefits but protect against the risks? Ex ante disclosure of essential patents Allows informed decision by participants Protects against "patent ambush" Commitment to license on FRAND terms Access to standard for all Quid pro quo for being included in the standard Designed to constrain ex post exercise of market power resulting from standard (pricing, other terms)

Injunctions SEP-based injunctions potentially anti-competitive Effects Standardisation context: commitment to license (FRAND) The patent has been included in the standard on that basis The company has chosen to provide access to all in exchange for monetisation - not to exclude Effects May exclude products from the market May lead to other harmful terms through a distortion of negotiations (e.g. royalty level, other clauses) There should be a willing licensee

Google/MMI merger decision (para 107) "Depending on the circumstances, it may be that the threat of injunction, the seeking of an injunction or indeed the actual enforcement of an injunction granted against a good faith potential licensee, may significantly impede effective competition by, for example, forcing the potential licensee into agreeing to potentially onerous licensing terms which it would otherwise not have agreed to."

Google/MMI merger decision (para 126) "The seeking or enforcement of injunctions on the basis of SEPs is also not, of itself, anti-competitive. In particular, and depending on the circumstances, it may be legitimate for the holder of SEPs to seek an injunction against a potential licensee which is not willing to negotiate in good faith on FRAND terms."

Injunctions Proceedings opened in 3 cases in 2012 Samsung Motorola/Apple Motorola/Microsoft Statements of Objections relating to the seeking and enforcement of SEP-based injunctions issued in the first two cases December 2012 and May 2013 respectively

Vice-President Almunia (Sep 2012) "The fact that we have received many complaints related to standards-essential patents also shows that there is a great need for guidance. I want to tell you that I am willing to provide clarity to the market through our enforcement. Having said that, I am also convinced that the industry needs to do its homework too. I expect the leading companies in the sector not to misuse their intellectual property rights. It is high time they look for negotiated solutions - I am tempted to call them ‘peace talks’ – that would put an end to the patent wars."