IPR – The Weakness of Essential (part iv)

  • Home
  • IPR
  • IPR – The Weakness of Essential (part iv)

RFM AvatarSmall

 

 

 

 

 

The latest EU ruling weakens the case for using SEPs for protection.

  • The strength of standard essential patents (SEP) has taken another hit as the EU has found that Motorola has been abusing its position as a SEP holder.
  • SEPs are patents that have been used to implement a technology standard such as 3G or LTE.
  • They reason they are so powerful is that they have to be infringed in order to implement a standard.
  • Hence, anyone who makes a LTE device will have infringed any patent that is standard essential to LTE.
  • Therefore it is very much easier to prove infringement of an SEP than it is for any other patent.
  • However, there is a catch.
  • When the standard is created, those that hold the patents agree to licence their technology on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis (FRAND).
  • The holders of these patents are also not supposed to seek injunctions but Germany is a territory that has historically allowed injunctions on SEPs.
  • This is why the vast majority of patent infringement lawsuits in Europe are tried in Germany as it is the most plaintiff friendly.
  • However, this may all change, as the EU finding is clearly frowning on the practice of seeking injunctions for SEP infringement.
  • This is going to make life difficult for anyone trying to defend themselves using SEPs.
  • This is basically everyone except Apple and Microsoft who have had considerable success in prosecuting non-essential patents.
  • With non-essential patents, there are no rules covering the terms under which they may be licenced making them much more powerful once infringement has been proved or admitted.
  • What most of the industry has done is to buy as many SEPs as they can get their hands on and then try and use those to defend themselves against the predations of Apple and Microsoft.
  • This ruling from the EU (albeit a preliminary one) is likely to set a precedent which could scupper attempts to seek injunctions as a remedy for SEP infringement.
  • This is a real problem as the threat of injunction is one of the few remedies that will get an opponent to cave in.
  • Hence, I suspect that days of usefulness of SEPs are numbered which is going to make life increasingly difficult for the Android community in particular.
  • The winners here are Microsoft and Apple both of whom offer good value for investors even if the shorter term outlook looks difficult.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RICHARD WINDSOR

Richard is founder, owner of research company, Radio Free Mobile. He has 16 years of experience working in sell side equity research. During his 11 year tenure at Nomura Securities, he focused on the equity coverage of the Global Technology sector.

Blog Comments

Many declared S.E.P.s aren’t essential to the standard. Since S.E.P.s were and still are self-declared, many companies chose to over declare to give themselves better leverage in royalty negotiations. So Apple has yet to be found guilty of infringing Samsung’s S.E.P.s.

Another problem for Motorola and Samsung are the EU fines they are facing for abusive use of S.E.P.s. In the US, Motorola is facing a breach-of-contract action from Microsoft for its failure to comply with FRAND licensing. I suspect Apple will hit Samsung with an equivalent action.

This is indeed a war of attrition and Android is running out of ammunition.

Totally agree many are not. However when you declare it as an SEP you lay yourself open to the obligations that that entails whether or not the patent is SE or not.

again agree..the Android defense led by Google has suffered from incredibly poor execution and ineptitude. More and more MMI llokks like a thumping $12.5bn loss for GOOG shareholders.

[…] A SEP holder is also NOT supposed to seek injunctive relief as this is deemed to be a breach of the FRAND principle. (see here) […]