Abstract:This paper has sought to provide a balanced, evidence-driven policy governance framework for SEP licensing by highlighting both the theoretical and historical use of private and public ordering mechanisms in the mobile economy. Included is a broad investigation of (1) the EC’s impact assessment methodology, previous research and guidance, and current SEP policy focus areas; (2) the specific context of SEP licensing in standards-enabled markets and the current evidence of market success; (3) a theoretical framing connecting high-quality research on specific SEP policy issues with seminal economics contributions to the understanding of public and private ordering and experimental governance; (4) a review of existing public and private ordering approaches for the current SEP policy focus areas; (5) an adjusted analytical framework and impact assessment for the governance of SEP licensing; (6) a discussion on policymaking under uncertainty, and experimental governance. Below is a short summary of the investigations undertaken and key findings and insights:1. Markets consist of a combination of private and public ordering mechanisms, but there is a fundamental difference between public ordering on the foundational layer of the market (i.e. enforcement of the rule of law) versus the transactional layer of the market (i.e. regulation by the administrative state). An SEP policy governance framework can benefit from a clearer understanding of private and public ordering and their market implications.2. Both private and public ordering takes place across a spectrum. Private ordering can range from independent to collective action by market actors, and public ordering can range from guidance to regulation by government actors. The assessment and implementation of SEP policy measures can greatly benefit from a clearer understanding of the broad spectrum of private and public tools, the different implications of their use, and the empirical impact of the tools that have historically been employed in the market.3. The same governance policies implemented through private and public ordering can produce very different results. For example, patent pools, which are seen as pro-competitive when arranged voluntarily by market actors, can clearly devolve into mechanisms for price regulation when involuntarily implemented by the state.4. The SEP licensing context is largely a story of collective, private ordering through the creation of open, consensus-based SDOs, FRAND-based IPR policies, and patent pools. These developments can be an explanation for why theories of market failure in SEP-enabled markets have not been shown empirically to occur in the mobile economy. A review of the private ordering mechanisms and economic implications across the issues of transparency of SEP exposure, licensing in the value chain, FRAND licensing terms and conditions, and patent pools were conducted and compared to received theories of market failure to provide potential explanations for the market success of the mobile economy.5. In market contexts characterized by open, collective innovation and a strong private ordering regime, governments should resist the unproven counterfactual belief that public ordering can produce solutions that will obviously improve the situation for all actors (i.e. Pareto efficiency). Because of the market complexity, the fragile balance of incentives, and potential strategic market responses to changes in SEP licensing policy, government intervention is more likely to generate tradeoffs that redistribute value and costs (i.e. Kaldor-Hicks efficiency) or unintentionally generate a systemic change that lowers social welfare (i.e. government failure). Here, policymakers could benefit from experimental governance mechanisms designed to manage market contexts of high uncertainty, such as the emerging IoT market development that will impact many industries but likely in different and uncertain ways, which are currently unknown.6. The influence of private and public actors on the market can be both direct and indirect, where indirect efforts may be the dominant factor through capture mechanisms. In particular, indirect public ordering can strongly influence private ordering decisions made in the shadow of regulation, which the authors label as market capture. This shadow is apparent in the IPR policy developments at both the IEEE-SA and ETSI. Market contexts experiencing high levels of capture activities are particularly vulnerable to Nirvana Fallacies and thus require an extra focus on evidence-based policy assessment.7. As stipulated in the EC Impact Assessment Guidelines, problems cited as the reason for government policy intervention need to be studied in-depth and measured holistically. This problem determination assessment needs to start from the beginning of any governmental market investigation, not wait to be done as the last step before policy approval. This lack of thorough investigation into the theoretical problems associated with SEP licensing has led to institutional capture, whereby theories of market failure have grown to become facts in the absence of empirical evidence.The authors strongly believe that it is important that the public debate (to which this paper is meant to contribute) achieve a shared understanding of the relevant problems and policy objectives in order to make a significant step forward on the issue of SEPs and standards-enabled markets. In the absence of such a common understanding, implied assessments of existing problems and desirable goals for policy action have the potential to skew the political debate. In the author’s view, working towards a consolidated assessment of the existing system and its strengths and weaknesses is at least as urgent a task as formulating proposed improvements on how to reform it. In order to properly frame the necessary debate going forward, we would like to conclude by underlining a number of important principles. 1. The primary objective of a policy framework for SEP licensing and of ICT standardization more generally is to support technological innovation and the further growth of wealth and welfare in society. Innovation by the active contributors to ICT standards development and by the producers of novel standard implementations has produced trillions of Euros in consumer surplus and many high-paid jobs in Europe and elsewhere. It is easy to take the success story of ICT standardization for granted. Nevertheless, this success story hinges on a supportive regulatory environment. Here, it is easy to miss the forest for the trees. Patent protection of standardized technologies and the necessity to negotiate SEP licenses produce transaction costs. While these transaction costs may be large in absolute terms, they pale by comparison to the benefits of innovation linked to ICT standards. We should keep in mind that the institution of patent protection itself rests on the idea that society incurs a static cost in exchange for the much greater dynamic benefits of technological innovation. While it is worthwhile exploring opportunities to increase efficiencies in the system, tinkering with the SEP licensing system that produces significant benefits to society should not be undertaken lightly. Any adverse effects on innovation incentives, should they occur, are bound to outweigh potential transaction cost savings. It is thus imperative that innovation incentives occupy a central place in the future debate on SEP policy reform. 2. The regulatory framework in which SEP licensing takes place has evolved over many decades. It has proven flexible and resilient throughout multiple periods of significant technological change and profound transformations in industry structure. Central to the strength of the framework is its governance. ICT standardization takes place in an astonishing diversity of organizations. Each of these organizations has its own specific circumstances, and there is no one-size-fits-all that could be applicable in each of these. This being said, experimentation with an innovative approach in a circumscribed setting may improve a policy’s viability. For many decades, the European Commission has participated in the evolution of this framework. It has contributed in a wide variety of different roles, as a facilitator of discussions among stakeholders, as a guardian against abuses by individual actors or colluding groups, and as a source of non-binding guidance on the implementation and interpretation of existing policies. Only exceptionally has the Commission advocated for specific policy changes within SDOs, and there is even less precedent for the Commission to act as the originator of experimental and controversial SDO policy innovations. We are hoping that the EC will pursue its long tradition of stakeholder-driven governance. 3. Looking to the future of ICT, there is broad agreement that the IoT and other significant technological evolutions will continue to impact the way in which SEP licensing takes place. Nevertheless, the nature of the anticipated effects is subject to an open debate. All expert assessments are limited in their ability to forecast the future. While a useful debate on possible solutions to potential problems is encouraged, more direct calls for regulatory interventions would need to be based on evidence of the actual occurrence and magnitude of such problems. Conjectures about the future are malleable and prone to being used by any interest group to its advantage. Instead of anticipatory regulation of future evolutions, we believe that a more prudent approach is to monitor the most relevant trends and to intervene in a tailored manner when observed problems in the system are causing social welfare loss. In the author’s view, the SEP policy debate will struggle to progress productively if there continues to be a lack of empirical evidence regarding some of the most fundamental and important issues. Thus, while this paper presents a logical governance framework and updated impact assessment methodology, it does not supplant the important and arduous task of collecting empirical observations, debating the relevance of observable data, and taking stock of the state of the evidence. The EC has greatly contributed historically to support this task, and further efforts in that direction are encouraged

Abstract:China is facing a pressing need to build its innovation-driven economy. With this backdrop, recent cases and controversies in judicial/administrative practice call our attention to the need of a more systematic understanding of the intersection between antitrust and IP. A critical thread in this intersection tapestry is the concept of “unfairly high patent pricing (专利高价)”. Different than its US counterpart, Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law pays substantial attention to a dominant market player’s unilateral “exploitative” conducts. Specifically, section 17(1) of the AML forbids a dominant undertaking from “abusing its market position” by selling at “unfairly high prices”. However, neither the Law nor later enacted Judicial Interpretation provides an administrable definition of what constitutes “unfairly high price” in an anti-monopoly sense. Correspondingly, courts and enforcement agencies have significant discretion in characterizing a patent pricing as “unfairly high”, thereby imposing penalty in practice. Despite a good intention, this ex post legal risk would seriously curtail business entities’ ex ante incentive to invest in innovation, which is often entailed with high risks. Lacking adequate legal and economic guidance, this discretion would also result in significant institutional positive error. Such error would be particularly severe in the context of patent-intensive industries. Section 55 of the AML provides an IP “safety harbor”, providing that a proper exercise of IPR shall be immune from the scrutiny by Anti-monopoly Law, while an abuse of IPR shall not. However, as recent cases/controversies indicated, this provision has been seldom followed by authorities in practice, probably due to the lack of an administrable test to differentiate “proper exercise” of IPRs from “abuse”.This article tries to inform the anti-monopoly differentiation between “proper use” and “misuse” of patent, by probing into the very mechanism patent regime has been utilizing to promote innovation, which constitutes a mutual goal with Chinese Anti-monopoly Law. Economic insight into patent jurisprudence prevalent in various jurisdictions including China and the US revealed that the patent regime promotes innovation essentially through the instigation of dynamic competition. More specifically, it (i) directly bridges an innovator’s R&D to market demands by granting the innovator a property right to exclude imitating competitors, thus restricting the competition by imitation ("CBI"); (ii) By restricting the competition by imitation, patent regime achieves dual goals - it not only enables an incumbent patentee’s access to ex post supra-competitive profits as ex ante incentive to invest, but also induces scarce social resources into other innovators’ channels for “inventing around”, i.e. to provide better/cheaper non-infringing technologies. This “inventing around”, i.e. subsequent innovators’ competition by substitution ("CBS"), constitutes a critical link in the virtuous circle of dynamic competition; (iii) Feeling competition pressure by existing or potential peer innovators, the original innovator would be incentivized to further investing in her own CBS, in order to stay a winner in the marketplace. In this way, a virtuous circle of dynamic competition would be instigated. As the conventional vehicle to protect a healthy market competition ecosystem, antitrust/anti-monopoly law should adopt a more dynamic perspective and respect the patent regime’s key mechanism in its own facilitation of innovation. Importantly, antitrust law should not lightly disturb a well-functioning circle of dynamic competition, simply because under its lens CBI or static efficiency seems restricted and local optimum seems not achieved - as a result, a supra-competitive or even monopoly profit enjoyed by a patentee, should be presumed legal per se if static efficiency loss is the only proved harm. On the other hand, arguably in exceptional circumstances certain patent pricing may indeed be so excessively structured to amount to a constructive refusal to deal with follow-on innovators or at least serious “margin squeeze” for these innovators, and such refusal or squeeze in theory may lead to foreclosure of the CBS itself, thus frustrating the circle of dynamic competition. As an illustration, the conventional hypothesis of patent “anti-commons” or over-broad patents’ suppressing effect on follow-on innovation can be well considered as embodiments of such theoretical worries of foreclosure on CBS. Nevertheless, decades of empirical research in various industries, including recent findings in SEP intensive areas, have showed little success in proving this theoretical worry in practice. There might be different explanations to this empirical failure. This article comments that perhaps precisely because the very patent mechanism of promoting innovation has been all along to instigate CBS through a restriction of CBI, throughout the years our patent regime has developed an implicit yet critical awareness to safeguard CBS from being foreclosed. This built-in awareness is reflected in a wide variety of rules and principles of patent jurisprudence prevalent in many jurisdictions, including the eligibility, inventiveness/non-obviousness and disclosure/enablement requirements in the grant of a patent, reverse doctrine of equivalents in patent infringement findings, as well as a few fundamental principles such as the proportionality principle as identified by Merges in Justifying IP. Surely these built-in mechanisms are not ironclad, but they may have worked in a more successful way than we gave faith to, and antitrust law shall not overlook this. Based on this insight, this article proposes that a patentee’s pricing act of her patented technologies should be presumed legal per se under section 55 of the AML, unless an administrative agency or anti-monopoly plaintiff can prove with actual evidence that the pricing at issue constitutes an “abuse” of the patent(s), in that it would likely foreclose the very type of competition mechanism the patent regime aims to promote, i.e. competition by substitution. In addition to the economic insight, this proposal is also supported by the antitrust/competition law practices in sister jurisdictions, and the cost-error framework pioneered by antitrust scholars such as Judge Easterbrook. Despite the existence of different official empowerments, almost all economically developed jurisdictions have exercised a very cautious practical attitude in condemning a market price as “unfairly high”, particularly when it comes to patent-intensive industries. Our unfairly high pricing provision does not have a counterpart in traditional US antitrust jurisprudence, and despite the existence of a theoretical counterpart in EU, it has been rarely invoked in practice for good reasons. Based on the above discussions of the critical mechanisms of patent regime to promote dynamic competition, the empirical scarcity of real foreclosure of competition by substitution, as well as the cautious attitude in sister jurisdictions, the cost-error framework pioneered by Judge Easterbrook further teaches us that as our knowledge of dynamic efficiency is still insufficient and precision is very often unreachable, in choosing a good antimonopoly policy we should prefer the side with less error costs. This preference is particularly necessary in China when it is still experiencing a strenuous transition from planned economy to a full-fledged market economy today.

IP Rights Delayed are IP Rights Denied: The Global Antitrust Institute’s Comment on the European Commission’s 2023 Proposal to Regulate Standard-Essential Patents

How Essential are Standard-Essential Patents?

Licensing standard‐essential patents with costly enforcement

The Regulation of Injunctive Relief on Standard Essential Patents Within China’s Anti-monopoly Law

A Policy Governance Framework for SEP Licensing: Assessing private versus public market interventions

FRAND Defences Against the Grant of Injunctive Relief: Applying Huawei v ZTE in Singapore and China

Patent Dependency Under European and European Union Patent Law – a Regulatory Gap

Through the Anti-Monopoly Lens: What Constitutes 'Unfairly High Patent Pricing' in China?

Do Standard-Essential Patent Owners Behave Opportunistically? Evidence From U.S. District Court Dockets

Patent Hold-out and Licensing Frictions: Evidence from Litigation of Standard Essential Patents

Recent developments in Korean antirust cases concerning FRAND-encumbered standard essential patents

Trolling the U.S. and EU Patent System: Solved by a Loser-Pays-Attorney-Fees Regime?

Standard Essential Patents: A Comparative Study of India, UK, and USA

Reductionist Intellectual Property Protection and Expansionist (and “Prodevelopment”) Competition Rules as a Human Rights Imperative? Enhancing Technology Transfer to the Global South

Tailoring the Patent System to Work for Software and Technology Patents

Study on the Injunction System of China's Standard Essential Patent Litigation

Patent Enforcement: A Comparative Review Preventing Patent Trolling in Europe

Standard Essential Patents: Returning to the Basics on Unwired v Huawei

FRAND Access to Data: Perspectives from the FRAND Licensing of Standard-Essential Patents for the Data Act Proposal and the Digital Markets Act

The Pro-Patent Holder Approach in Unwired V. Huawei in Interpreting the ‘Fair, Reasonable and Non- Discriminatory’ Rule for the Licensing of Standard Essential Patents

Talent Acquisitions and Lock-in Agreements: Antitrust Concerns