Longstanding and economically environment friendly steadiness in Customary-Important Patent licensing is being destabilized by misinformation and manipulation of economic practices and of benchmarks in Truthful, Affordable and Non-Discriminatory licensing. That is epitomized in litigation between Apple and Qualcomm, commencing January 2017, till settlement in April 2019 and within the US Federal Commerce Fee’s antitrust motion in opposition to Qualcomm additionally commencing across the similar time and now on appeal. Many within the mobile business—who unsurprisingly like the concept of decrease costs for one thing they assimilate and should pay for quite than that they create or promote—have lapped this up. However that doesn’t justify the disingenuity or negate the ensuing dangerous results that undermine incentives for ongoing and long-term know-how improvement within the cellular communication sector together with 5G and the emerging Internet of Things.

 “Purpose: Cut back Apple’s web Royalty to Qualcomm” *1

Because the 1990s, Apple amongst others have taken varied and elaborate steps to “Devalue SEPs.”  As indicated within the subsequent three endnotes, I’ve analysed the failings within the first three of Apple’s proposed measures for “Reshaping FRAND – Licensing, Litigation & Competitors Regulation” together with:

  • “Base = derived from smallest priceable part (i.e. baseband)” *2
  • “Fee = no larger than adjusted pro-rata share of SEPs” *3
  • “Management for high quality, over-declaration & royalty stacking” *4
  • “Construct beneficial, arms-length ‘comp’ licensees”

And, concerning the fourth measure, for instance, Apple’s actions over the years in the run-up to suing Qualcomm had been in “Creating Proof” for the lawsuit so “[it]can leverage [its]buying energy” and “captur[e]IP worth with buy energy.” To attain this, Apple “selectively filter[ed][deal-flow] pipeline to determine essentially the most fascinating offers,” it “Us[ed]Liabilities as an Asset” and “Evaluated threat, value and use[d]as proof… as a comparable in disputes with others.” Apple sought to “create leverage by constructing stress” that will “harm Qualcomm financially,” put “Qualcomm’s licensing mannequin in danger” and “drive Qualcomm to have interaction Apple” on a considerably weakened foundation.

Apple’s multi-pronged assault included coercing its suppliers—contract producers Foxconn, Pegatron, Wistron and Compal—into violating provide agreements, together with these cast with Qualcomm two or extra years earlier than a few them even began making iPhones for the launch of the very first mannequin in mid 2007. Apple’s stipulations demanded “[CM] doesn’t settle any such declare or allegation, or make any admissions of legal responsibility or admissions related to the declare or allegation (associated to the Items), or take some other motion that [CM] is aware of or ought to fairly know will hurt Apple’s place(s) with respect to the declare or allegation, with out Apple’s prior written permission.” For instance, in accordance with one in every of them: “our buyer has not too long ago [as of April 2017]requested compal to cease the royalty fee to Qualcomm.” For CMs to proceed paying would have left them incurring losses by not having the ability to recuperate licensing prices together with part and manufacturing prices, as was the norm. “Apple might notify Provider that Apple is not going to pay Provider any quantity attributable to cellular know-how license charges at any time, and after the date of any such notification, any cellular know-how license charges that Provider pays are the only accountability of Provider.”

Timeline of Contract Producers’ Subscriber Unit Licensing Agreements

In contrast to Apple with gross profit margins of around 60 percent on its iPhones, corresponding figures for CMs are one tenth of that and CMs typically have operating margin percentages in the low single digits. Qualcomm had been receiving licensing royalties of $7.50 per iPhone till Apple compelled its CMs to cease paying. That was, for instance, one fifth the price of the digicam and versus complete part, meeting and take a look at prices of $325 *5 or the iPhone eight Plus. The unsubsidized retail value of this mannequin was $799. Product prices and costs are from 2017/2018 for the most affordable mannequin with 64GB of reminiscence.

The restrictions Apple imposed on its CMs had been in overt breach of its (2013-2016) Enterprise Cooperation and Patent Settlement (BCPA) with Qualcomm for which “Apple [was]in danger for infringement, tortious interference and full royalties (plus and curiosity, penalties, and so forth).”  The BCPA required that “Apple shall not knowingly take (or proceed taking) any motion in opposition to or make any demand of any Qualcomm Licensee that forestalls, restricts, or discourages such Qualcomm Licensee from which it purchases Apple Gadgets from complying absolutely with the phrases of such Qualcomm Licensee’s QC License Settlement.”  Apple discovered it “Helpful to attend to impress a patent combat till after the tip of 2016” when the movement of all the advantages it acquired from Qualcomm ceased with expiration of the BCPA.

IP worth is unrelated to publication medium, {hardware} and manufacturing prices

All of us perceive and settle for that many of the value for books, recorded music, and flicks is for the mental property added quite than within the publication medium. Equally, with generic drugs typically being 80-85 percent lower in price than patented pharmaceuticals, we acknowledge that many of the worth within the latter earlier than patent expiration is in IP quite than in the price of medication manufacturing.

The parallels amongst e-book printing, audio or video disc manufacturing and chip manufacture are nearer than one may think. In all these instances, manufacturing plant is kind of generic, sometimes operated by unbiased producers and could be quickly reconfigured to serve the wants of various prospects and merchandise. Declining manufacturing course of prices together with in silicon foundries have little or no relationship with prices of content material or know-how improvement elsewhere. Whereas Taylor Swift sounds and has very totally different IP possession to Black Sabbath, CD manufacturing of their respective albums is as oblivious and unbiased of that as is TSMC’s chip foundry to the mobile or video codec SEP possession and to the implementation of mobile modem designs by MediaTek versus Huawei’s HiSilicon. The manufacturing of CDs and chips is, subsequently, quite like printing from a business perspective.

So why is there such resistance to paying total royalties of no more than around five percent of smartphone costs in patent licensing fees in patent-rich units corresponding to smartphones?

IP prices are sometimes buried and invisible in know-how product payments of supplies. The place a producing firm develops its personal IP for the merchandise it produces, the R&D value is accounted for as a hard and fast and sunk oblique value—not a variable value in manufacturing, as with the addition of a digicam or baseband chip. The identical accounting therapy applies when that IP worth is cross-licensed to different producers for net-zero or a lot lowered web licensing fees. In some instances, concerted motion amongst product suppliers insists that patented and different applied sciences are solely licensed to those that contribute their IP free of charge, as is the case with open supply software program and a few royalty-free patent pooling preparations, as is the case with the Bluetooth Special Interest Group and with the USB Implementers Forum. They do this as a result of prices are recovered from their monetary returns on promoting services and products that incorporate these applied sciences. It is just when that IP is procured from elsewhere in licensing for money funds and without the quid pro quo in cross-licensing the manufactures of others that true values are revealed wherever, such within the administration or monetary accounts.

Qualcomm was focused regardless of and due to its superior patent energy

Apple recognised internally that “Qualcomm is extensively thought of the proprietor of the strongest patent portfolio for important and related patents for wi-fi requirements.” Nevertheless, with the measures recognized above, in public statements, in its litigation complaints in opposition to Qualcomm and in its sponsorship of the FTC motion in opposition to Qualcomm, Apple sought to undermine SEP valuations usually. Qualcomm leads amongst homeowners of wi-fi SEPs and SEPs studying on different requirements relevant to Apple’s merchandise implementations. Apple recognises Qualcomm superior place: “in comparison with others [Huawei, Nokia, Ericsson, InterDigital and Apple], Qualcomm holds a stronger place in every of the [ WiFi, audio/video and cellular SEP] classes, and notably with respect to mobile and WiFi SEPs”.

Apple additionally acknowledges that Qualcomm “has important holdings in different areas, together with many areas related to Apple… In comparison with different licensors, Qualcomm has extra important holdings in key areas corresponding to media processing, non-cellular communications and {hardware}. Likewise, utilizing patent quotation evaluation as a measure of thorough prosecution inside the US PTO, Qualcomm patents (SEPs and non-SEPs each) on common rating larger examine to the opposite, largely non-US based mostly licensors.”  And but, Apple’s much-published arguments had been additionally that Qualcomm’s non-SEPs are usually not price a lot.

Qualcomm’s licensing-for-money enterprise mannequin was essentially the most profitable goal for Apple in potential value financial savings, as a result of licensing by Ericsson and Nokia—that used to license defensively to protect handset business downstream and nonetheless have massive downstream community gear companies—proceed to be restricted—notably by their legacy comps together with intensive cross-licensing—within the extent to which they are often absolutely and property rewarded in money royalties for his or her patent worth.

Good worth for cash

Whereas some OEMs have managed to “maintain out” from paying their fair proportion in patent licensing charges, the established order in SEP licensing beneath FRAND phrases has labored quite effectively general. For instance, billions of customers use gigabytes of cellular information per 30 days on smartphones which might be their main or solely technique of web entry. Within the US, customers spend extra time on their cellular units than they do watching tv, in important half as a result of video streaming on these units is substituting considerably for the previous. At Three hours 43 minutes per day in 2019, the average U.S. adult spends more time using all their mobile devices (including smartphones, tablets, etc.) than they do watching television.

Apple’ CEO Tim Prepare dinner even publicly acknowledged the worth of enhancements in mobile know-how. For instance, in an April 2016 call to investors he stated “[T]he LTE rollout with India simply actually started this 12 months, and so we’ll start to see some actually good networks approaching in India. That can unleash the facility and functionality of the iPhone in a approach that an older community, a 2.5G and even some 3G networks, wouldn’t do.”

Licensors of the standard-essential applied sciences which have made a lot of the above doable are usually not merely free using on earlier accomplishments of their licensing calls for.  Main SEP builders, together with Ericsson, Nokia and Qualcomm specifically, don’t have any direct share of the massive cell phone product market, which is price practically $500 billion yearly and gives stellar income to Apple, or of the operator companies market price $1 trillion or of the revenues Web platforms and functions together with Android, Uber and Fb generate from cellular units.  Consequently, these licensors want and deserve satisfactory compensation, by different means, for his or her main R&D developments in SEP technologies.

New know-how developments are enabling an accelerating tempo of enhancements together with 5G which, for instance, have unlocked entry to the mmWave spectrum that’s offering orders of magnitude extra mobile community velocity and capability than was even thought conceivable lower than ten years in the past when 4G was first launched. With important additional developments nonetheless required, 5G guarantees a lot extra in ultra-reliable and low-latency communications together with connections to a large number of issues in addition to folks.

The tempo of innovation is growing, however it’s largely the identical comparatively few firms that make many of the technical contributions to plain setting organizations, corresponding to 3GPP for mobile, and that file SEP declarations to the ETSI IP rights database.  A few of these firms are more and more depending on licensing for charges quite than promoting manufactured merchandise to make a return on their massive R&D investments.

Authorized tussles and penalties of Choices

There may be a lot ongoing authorized dispute with tensions amongst patent regulation, contract regulation and antitrust regulation: in Qualcomm’s enchantment to Choose Koh’s Determination within the US FTC case and elsewhere amongst different litigants. Issues embody these of patent exhaustion, the place within the provide chain licensing might or ought to happen, tying and unique dealing, the which means for FRAND, availability of injunctions, and jurisdictional points amongst nations in contract interpretation and in world licensing.  Judgments on enchantment within the US and EU and within the UK Supreme Courtroom (i.e. Unwired Planet v Huawei; Conversant v Huawei and ZTE) might result in main disruptive adjustments with important surprising in addition to anticipated penalties. Litigants must be cautious of doable and sure antagonistic long-term penalties in what they need for, given the massive success of the cellular sector for producers, operators and the large advantages it has offered to customers.

I’ll end with one other idiom that involves thoughts with the British Pantomime season upon us. Whereas the idiom is from Mom Goose, it’s extra extensively identified from is origins in one in every of Aesop’s Fables. Don’t kill the goose that lays the golden egg!

The goose that lays the golden egg


*1 This and all subsequent quotes, aside from a public announcement by Apple’s CEO, Tim Prepare dinner, are from inner paperwork at Apple, as discovered via discovery within the litigation between Apple and Qualcomm, and as revealed publicly for the primary time in Qualcomm’s Opening Assertion presentation at trial on April 16, 2019. In Re: Qualcomm litigation Case No. 3:17cv0108-GPC-MDD (S.D. Cal.) https://www.scribd.com/document/407463620/Qualcomm-opening-statement. The trial was terminated very shortly thereafter that day with dispute settlement between Apple and Qualcomm. See additionally: https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2019/04/16/qualcomm-and-apple-agree-drop-all-litigation

*2 https://cpip.gmu.edu/2015/10/07/busting-smartphone-patent-licensing-myths/

*Three http://www.ip.finance/2017/05/do-not-count-on-accuracy-in-third-party.html

*Four http://www.ip.finance/2015/08/cumulative-mobile-sep-royalty-payments.html

*5 TechInsights estimates for part, meeting and take a look at prices.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here