Avanci 5G doubles number of licensees, quadruples number of licensed brands as BMW signs up: Volkswagen/Audi next?

The Avanci 5G automotive standard-essential patent (SEP) pool revealed Mercedes-Benz as its first licensee last month. Today the licensing program announced that BMW has joined as well, which takes the number of licensed brands from one to four: Mercedes, BMW, MINI, and Rolls-Royce. Today's press release also indicates that the number of licensors has increased from 58 to 61.

By now, almost the entire automotive industry has an Avanci 4G license. But back in 2017, BMW became Avanci's first 4G licensee. It took a while for that pool to be widely adopted. Things appear to be going significantly faster with Avanci 5G now.

In retrospect, BMW's decision made business sense unless one believes in the illegal concept of group boycott: Mercedes (then named Daimler) and Volkswagen did not save money by opposing the Avanci model. They ended up choosing the pool license over bilateral licensing negotiations and disputes, but unlike BMW they incurred litigation expenses (in Volkswagen's case, the dispute was short-lived and due to the fact they licensed only 3G patents for most of the cars the group makes). BMW saved money, time, and energy. They stayed above the fray.

While I have not yet seen a German SEP infringement case targeting BMW, they are clearly not a soft target for non-SEP holders. Typically represented by Bardehle Pagenberg's Professor Tilman Mueller-Stoy ("Müller-Stoy in German), BMW is known to defend itself vigorously against patent infringement assertions, though most of the time the outcome is, obviously, a license agreement. If such a company takes a license without litigation, it must have concluded that the licensed patents are valuable.

Germany's remaining three automotive brands are Volkswagen, Audi, and Porsche, all of which belong to Volkswagen Group. Audi and Porsche clearly compete in some of the same market segments as BMW and Mercedes. It would make a lot of sense for VW to join the pool now. Sooner or later, some 5G SEP holders will start to enforce their rights against unwilling licensees. Just like German judges pressed Mercedes (then named Daimler) to explain why a license that had been taken by their closest (and equally German) competitors: BMW and Audi. I doubt that Audi would want to have to justify--particularly in front of the same judges who heard Nokia v. Daimler--a refusal to take a license that Mercedes and BMW deem to make economic sense.

Just like actions speak louder than words, real-world license deals are way more meaningful than spin doctoring and political propaganda. Mercedes-Benz told the EU that the proposed SEP regulation (or something even more lopsided) was badly needed, yet became the first Avanci 5G licensee because they deemed it prudent. Similarly, BMW Group is now an early adopter of the Avanci 5G license, yet it is a member of the Fair Standards Alliance and of certain automotive industry organizations that take similar positions.

There's nothing difficult to understand: every company would like to bring any cost category--here, cellular SEP license fees--down, even if such costs are already fair and reasonable. Automakers are no different. That is unrelated to the merits of Avanci providing a one-stop solution that Mercedes and BMW have twice (4G and now 5G) considered superior over dozens and dozens of bilateral deals. And opportunism by some car makers certainly doesn't make the EU proposal any less misguided. Case in point, a single Nokia v. OPPO decision in Sweden (which went in the defendant's favor) showcases at least four of the countless flaws of that bill.

Accurate and holistic analysis needs to look at what those companies say and what they do. License deals that are concluded in the absence of litigation--and presumably even without the slightest threat of litigation other than the fact that any infringement may sooner or later become the subject of enforcement action.

Europe's and particularly Germany's automotive industry is facing undeniably large problems. Cellular SEP licensing is none of them, though. Even if those costs were reduced through political intervention (which I don't see happening, though it is some people's agenda), that wouldn't help to address any of the fundamental challenges facing the European auto sector, particularly because there's no comparative advantage for companies selling cars in a given target market in which certain patents must be licensed.

Today's Avanci-BMW announcement is good news for those who argue that the market can and will find solutions, as are other recent license deals such as Huawei's recent agreement with Xiaomi.

Patent pools exist to simplify licensing--which must have been the reason why BMW entered into one agreement rather than 60+ bilateral deals--while some EU officials and politicians are trying to complicate the process and mistakenly view pools as part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Share|

Huawei uniquely attains net-licensor status without defining its patent licensing business as profit center: 20+ license agreements struck in 2022

Huawei may have become the information and communications technology industry's first "accidental net licensor" of major proportions. In this context, "accidental" doesn't mean that anybody got hurt (nor that it was never intended): it's just that this outcome wasn't the original ambition.

The week before last, the South China Morning Post reported that "last year the company’s royalty income exceeded the expenses it paid for licensing technologies from other companies for the first time, according to Huawei."

What makes this all the more surprising is that Huawei's 2021 total revenue was still in the $100 billion range. It's easy to be a net licensor with a small product business, but for a large-scale (actually, hyperscale) implementer it's astounding, even when considering that "Huawei last year filed a record 6,952 patent applications, up 27 per cent from the previous year, through the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)," which "made Huawei the world’s biggest PCT filer for five consecutive years."

While it is now imperative for Huawei to generate more revenue from patent licensing in order to fund its innovative activity despite the fallout from a U.S. trade ban, there are no signs of Huawei having sacrificed the values it defended during its net-implementer times. It's just that when it runs the numbers at (or toward) the end of a given year, the company now finds that its income from outbound patent licensing exceeds its royalty payments to third parties. That's my interpretation of the following one-sentence paragraph from the South China Morning Post article:

"However, [Huawei IP chief Alan] Fan said the company is not treating IP licensing as a business or relying on it as a major revenue stream."

The Chinese newspaper says "Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei told the company’s intellectual property (IP) team to step up efforts to turn its vast pool of patents into revenue via 'reasonable pricing' and 'generate an appropriate return' on the R&D investments, according to a company memo made public in April." So it is probably fair to say that

• yes, Huawei is now placing greater strategic emphasis than before on outbound licensing, but

• no, this doesn't mean Huawei intends to generate a high percentage of its total profits from IP royalties.

Another factor that enabled Huawei's licensing income to surpass its licensing costs is that certain types of technologies with respect to which Huawei holds particularly powerful rights--such as wireless connectivity and video/audio codecs--have become extremely ubiquitous. Take connected cars: according to the SCMP article, Huawei "has reached royalty agreements with 15 carmakers globally, including Audi, Mercedes-Benz and BMW."

The article also mentions two major cross-license agreements that Huawei announced last month: one with OPPO and another with Nokia.

On the bottom line, it appears that Huawei is now less prepared than in the past to condone free-riding on its innovations, but constructive implementers won't find it hard to strike agreements, compared to the royalty demands they face in most other negotiations...

Share|

Texas-based Estech Systems targets car makers Toyota and BMW in rapidly expanding VoIP patent assertion campaign

There's a gut instinct when a patent holder based in the Lone Star State files patent infringement lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas against famous companies: "Oh, another non-practicing entity." (or "troll" as some would call it)

While Cisco dislikes certain patent enforcement tactics employed by Estech Systems ("ESI"), Estech is not a "patent troll." According to its website, the company was founded in 1987 and "has sold over 400,000 phone systems and deployed more than three million phones nationwide." ESI claims to have been "the first company to build a truly combined telephone and voice mail system, as well as the first to build a purely IP-based business communications system, and has numerous patents granted or pending on its products' unique designs and capabilities."

ESI started asserting cetain Voice over IP (VoIP) patents a while ago, but in recent days has filed a number of additional complaints. Here's a very recent one targeting Toyota (this post continues below the document):

22-01-03 Estech v. Toyota C... by Florian Mueller

I've also uploaded to Scribd ESI's complaint against another car maker: BMW.

ESI is asserting four patents:

• U.S. Patent No. 6,067,349 on "dialing using caller ID" (expired)

• U.S. Patent No. 7,068,684 on "quality of service in a voice over IP telephone system"

• U.S. Patent No. 7,123,699 on "voice mail in a voice over IP telephone system"

• U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298 on a "phone directory in a voice over IP telephone system"

Only the first one has expired, limiting Estech's potential relief to a damages award. The other three patents are still alive, and Estech is seeking not only damages for past infringement but also injunctive relief over them. Estech alleges willful infringement in the form of willful blindness:

"Defendants have a policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others (including instructing its employees to not review the patents of others), and thus has been willfully blind of Estech’s patent rights."

What I do know is that patent holders generally find car makers very difficult to deal with, and BMW has a reputation for being particularly slow to respond to infringement notices.

Estech is represented by local IP litigation firm Williams Simons & Landis. Those lawyers may still be busy finalizing additional complaints, and chances are that Toyota and BMW are not the last car makers to have been sued by Estech.

Follow @FOSSpatents

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Share|

Daimler takes Avanci patent license--all major German car makers now Avanci-licensed, but Volkswagen only up to 3G

Germany's leading business weekly, Wirtschaftswoche, has just been first (and I might still be second) to report that Daimler has finally taken a standard-essential patent (SEP) license from the Avanci pool, whose licensors include Qualcomm, Nokia, Ericsson as well as dozens of other companies from around the globe.

If you can't beat'em, join'em.

It was actually Avanci's approach of licensing the end product--the vehicle as opposed to a component thereof--which Daimler had originally rejected. As a result, the Nokia v. Daimler patent infringement dispute lasted more than two years and ended in a bilateral (just Nokia and Daimler) license agreement that was announced on June 1, 2021. Daimler had also brought an EU antitrust complaint (over Nokia's refusal to grant Daimler's suppliers an exhaustive SEP license) that it withdrew after the settlement.

Prior to settling with Nokia, Daimler had already taken bilateral licenses from Japanese electronics giant Sharp and non-practicing entity Conversant Wireless. All those companies--plus Japan's IP Bridge--had sued Daimler in Germany over patent infringements. And all of them are among the Avanci pool's more than three dozen licensors.

Piecemeal resolution--licensing one portfolio at a time--apparently turned out uneconomic, and litigation involves major uncertainty, so Daimler's decision-makers opted for a one-stop solution. In the alternative, I guess one Avanci licensor after the other would have wanted Daimler to take a bilateral license. If you're a Qualcomm or an Ericsson, why would you not want to get paid if Nokia does? If you're an Unwired Planet or Longhorn IP, why wouldn't you want to collect royalties if Daimler took a license from Conversant? Why would anyone condone an ongoing infringement while similarly situated patent holders are raking in license fees? Daimler avoided a lot of issues by signing a deal with Avanci. I've criticized Daimler on various occasions, but this pragmatic choice just makes sense under the current circumstances.

Of the three major German car makers, BMW was first to take a 4G Avanci license (in January 2017). In 2019, Volkswagen subsidiaries Audi and Porsche followed--and the following month, other car makers in the Volkswagen Group took a 3G license, but is now being sued by Acer because its license does not cover the 4G standard Volkswagen actually implements. The fact that the other major German car makers had accepted Avanci's car-level licensing model was held against Daimler in the German Nokia cases. Daimler's license deal will now weigh against other car makers' FRAND arguments. I'm thinking of Volkswagen's defenses against Acer but also about Ford, which is facing an infringement case brought by Sisvel as well as other lawsuits (IP Bridge, Longhorn IP) over its refusal to take an Avanci license.

Continental and Thales remain on the losing track

Some Daimler suppliers are still fighting against end product-level licensing. Continental (which knows a lot more about making tires than about patent licensing, litigation, and policy) continues to be a vocal critic of the Avanci model. These days it's hard to attend a FRAND/SEP webinar without someone from Continental expressing concerns. French industrial conglomerate Thales, whose primary competence it is to make high-speed trains, brought an antitrust case in Munich that is highly unlikely to get traction.

The likes of Conti and Thales can keep trying to tell courts and competition watchdogs that they should be granted an exhaustive component-level SEP license by Avanci's licensors, but judges and antitrust officials will see that their customer--Daimler--has determined that a car-level pool license is the way to go. Neither Thales nor Conti will be able to explain away that market reality.

Also, a Fifth Circuit opinion affirming the dismissal of Continental's U.S. case against Avanci and several Avanci licensors will come down soon. Conti's Delaware case against Nokia has been sent back from the federal court to the state court, which means that the case was basically just going in a circle for about a year--and the state court could still find that the case actually belongs in federal court (which in my opinion it does, as patent exhaustion is a theory under patent law, which is federal law, even if contractual questions are involved). It could also dismiss Conti's case, which is actually a fairly likely outcome.

Tout ça pour ça? Questioning the wisdom of Daimler's dispute with Nokia

This outcome does beg the question of why Daimler picked a fight with Nokia (and other Avanci licensors) in the first place. In the end, Daimler wasted millions and millions of euros on Quinn Emanuel's litigation services, only to be enjoined four times (two injunctions in Nokia's favor, one for Sharp, and one for Conversant) just over the course of a few months in 2020. If the Nokia dispute had continued, there would most likely have been several more injunctions, as some cases had been stayed but the patents-in-suit survived Daimler's validity challenges. Daimler could have had this outcome with pretty much any other German patent litigation firm (and they're all less expensive than QE), and could have taken an Avanci license in the first place without ever having to defend against SEP assertions by an Avanci licensor.

For a company that generally prides itself on cost efficiency, such a waste is unusual, if not unprecedented, and I wouldn't be surprised if some people were now struggling to justify the decisions they made a couple of years ago.

It's not that it's necessarily wrong to fight--because if you win, it's hard for others to argue with your success. Daimler wanted to bring down patent license fees. That's their job, just like it's the job of those people's counterparts at other companies to maximize their revenues. But then you have to play a game that you know how to win, and there was no sign of the people in charge of Daimler's Nokia cases being up to the challenge. They lacked the experience and the broad perspective that you need to win a war like that. I'm quite convinced that a company like Apple would have done a far better job by virtue of the strategic sophistication of its in-house litigators (who play this game more holistically and know how to get a better price-performance ratio from outside counsel). They also never figured out how to successfully influence Germany's patent reform process, despite the automotive industry's privileged access to politicians.

By comparison, major U.S. corporations value their in-house counsel a lot more. As a result, they bring in people who could easily be partners at some of the world's leading law firms. By contrast, the general perception in Germany is that if someone becomes in-house counsel, it's because they're not up to the way more lucrative challenge in Big Law. Going in-house is pretty much a point of no return in Germany, not a revolving door like in America. This doesn't mean that there aren't some very capable people in the legal departments of German corporations, but on average they're clearly nowhere near as sophisticated as their U.S. counterparts. That's also what I hear from patent holders of different sizes trying to work out deals.

For German legal departments, it's less about achieving results than justifying their decisions internally, such as by fooling their superiors into believing that something (such as German patent "reform") is a success story when it actually isn't. But at this stage Daimler's lawyers can hardly justify their waste of money on those Nokia, Sharp, Conversant, and IP Bridge cases. The negative ROI is all too clear.

German corporations treat legal departments are mere service providers. In major U.S. corporations, they have a strategic role and are a sparring partner for management in certain contexts. A great example is Brad Smith, who joined Microsoft as in-house counsel, ran its legal department for many years, and was then promoted to President (beyond still being the company's top lawyer).

Possibly the most important breakthrough for Avanci to date

For Avanci, Daimler's decision to take the pool license is a breakthrough. Its importance can hardly be overstated as other car makers are now going to be increasingly inclined to do the same, as opposed to betting on that non-starter called Licensing Negotiation Groups. Early last month, an Avanci executive mentioned new license agreements with Jaguar, Land Rover, and Aston Martin. And while neither Avanci nor Tesla ever confirmed it, there's a strong assumption of Tesla having taken an Avanci license, as multiple infringement actions brought by Avanci licensors against Tesla were withdrawn near-simultaneously.

Shortly after Nokia's settlement with Daimler, another--unnamed, but possibly Ford--car maker took a bilateral license. We may see similar effects now, but with respect to Avanci.

Meanwhile, the automotive industry is awaiting with interest the (delayed) announcement of Avanci's 5G pool rate.

Ramifications for Ericsson v. Apple

As I touched in a previous section on how Apple would have performed in Daimler's place, the iPhone maker is now going to be indirectly impacted by this in case it fails to renew its license agreement with Ericsson. Should we see another round of Ericsson v. Apple infringement cases in 10 days' time, Ericsson will benefit from Daimler's Avanci license in two ways. Apple famously makes a smallest salable patent-practicing unit (SSPPU) argument, and the momentum behind the Avanci pool--even though in a different industry--ups the ante for anyone arguing that SEPs should be licensed at the chipset level. And even though there are differences between these industries, the more traction Avanci has, the harder it will be for Apple with its huge margins to argue that it can't just pay Ericsson $5 per iPhone for its entire patent portfolio all the way up to 5G (for a reminder, Avanci has yet to announce its 5G rate, but the rate is expected to be substantially higher--for good reason--than the 4G fee).

Wirtschaftswoche's recent patent coverage

Today's Daimler-Avanci breaking news is actually the third patent-related Wirtschaftswoche story on patents within less than a week that is recommended reading for those who understand German and are interested in patent licensing and litigation. "WiWo" also researched the creepy story of dozens of jobs lost at a small family-owned company due to Germany's bifurcation regime (which allows injunctions to be enforced prior to a ruling on the (in)validity of a patent-in-suit). That article appeared in Friday's print edition, and was additionally uploaded to wiwo.de yesterday.

Also yesterday, Wirtschaftswoche reported on the Acer v. Volkswagen patent lawsuit. In that article, I am quoted as saying that Volkswagen should long have acquired a SEP portfolio (given that such patents are for sale from time to time) and needs to approach IP more strategically at the top level. To be clear, VW has a fully functional patent department, and they're ahead of others in their industry, but without C-level executives taking a stronger interest in IP and deciding not to make themselves dependent on other companies (such as Daimler) through slavish adherence to industry associations, they're not going to be match for wireless patent licensors. Volkswagen told the VDA (Germany's automotive industry association) point blank that they'd leave the organization unless it fully commits to electric mobility.

C-level interest in IP differs greatly between the automotive industry and Big Tech. Big Tech CEOs have subscribed to this blog and the related Twitter account, but I'm not aware of the top brass of automotive companies ever having subscribed to FOSS Patents.

As Daimler's Avanci license shows, the automotive industry has to come to terms with the fact that major wireless companies are now in the position to impose their preferred business models on car makers, no matter how much the auto industry may point to century-old traditions regarding their supply chains and what have you.

The battle over the business model is practically over. Daimler's legal fees are a sunk cost, and its financial controllers will be crying tears. What all car makers--above all, Volkswagen--need to reflect on now is how to achieve the best results possible under a framework that wasn't their first choice, but which has simply prevailed. They've all learned a few lessons in recent years--and they've paid their tuition fees. The problem they face is that the world around them is changing faster than their organizations can adjust. Increasingly they're going to face competition from companies that hold SEPs, such as Apple, Google, or Xiaomi. In times of transformation, leadership from the very top of those organizations is needed. Otherwise the only beneficiaries will continue to be patent litigation firms.

Follow @FOSSpatents

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Share|

The lemmings of patent injunction reform: Microsoft, BMW, Deutsche Telekom joined ip2innovate during German reform process

Political decision-making processes tend to be so complex that it's often very difficult to identify a clear causation between what went wrong and why. In connection with Germany's patent reform, which has been carefully crafted by the country's government to change almost nothing at all (see my initial reaction to yesterday's official legislative proposal), one can infer from publicly-accessible documents that the Brussels-based ip2innovate lobby group (Google, Daimler, SAP etc.) committed the colossal blunder that most likely condemns the reform effort to fail. "Be careful what you wish for." IP2I advocated the term "Einzelfall" that is now the central term that will render the reform ineffectual because the government's official legislative rationale clearly defines it as "hardly ever happens." Now the losers are trapped in a no-through one-way street as they can't lobby against their own proposal. They dug their own reform's grave.

Germany's leading information & communications technology news site, Heise online, quotes my analysis in an article on yesterday's legislative proposal, including my criticism of IP2I's lack of strategic sophistication. For what I know, however, chip makers Nvidia and Intel, while they're longstanding IP2I members, can't be blamed for the "Einzelfall" crap.

Were IP2I only a fringe group of the patent reform movement, the others could still combat that "Einzelfall" term effectively. But birds of a feather flock together, and lemmings famously follow other lemmings. With the sole exception of Volkswagen (the whole group including subsidiaries like Audi and Porsche), IP2I's membership directory lists practically every large German organization that demands injunction reform.

Over the course of this year, the misguided IP policy groups of three large organizations--two of them among Germany's largest corporations--joined IP2I:

• Microsoft,

• BMW, and

• Deutsche Telekom.

Deutsche Telekom's IP department habitually hurts the company's interests. They even contributed their cellular standard-essential patents (SEPs) to the abusive Avanci pool. They might have found it convenient, and maybe they thought it was "cool" to join some large patent holders in a pool, but Avanci is all about driving up licensing costs, which runs counter to Deutsche Telekom's interests. Also, Deutsche Telekom is still the only company known to have made a huge royalty payment to patent troll IPCom. They could have avoided it by simply insulating their then-outgoing CEO from the potential fallout from IPCom's patent assertions against him. Instead, they paid hundreds of millions of dollars at a time when Nokia and HTC were actually defending themselves very successfully against that same patent portfolio. Deutsche Telekom also has a reputation for having caved to other patent holders in situations in which many others wouldn't have done so.

As I already noted yesterday, Deutsche Telekom might benefit to some degree from the fact that the reform bill makes harm to third parties a factor. In Dusseldorf that might help; in Munich and even in Mannheim, it most likely won't. Those courts will tell them to take a license. If patent holders seek injunctions that threaten to shut down Deutsche Telekom's network, it's just a means to an end. The end is a costly license deal; leverage from an injunction is the means. So those patent holders will make a licensing offer, and the courts will then tell Deutsche Telekom that the harm they suffer isn't irreparable: they don't have to switch off their network infrastructure as they can take a license. I already explained based on the January draft bill how this would work.

The world's top three smartphone makers--Apple, Samsung, and Huawei--are notably absent from IP2I's membership directory. They have to defend themselves against German patent infringement complaints all the time. In order for them to be in a better position, the hurdle for a useful injunction reform statute would be considerably higher than for Deutsche Telekom (which can at least argue that third parties depend on access to its network) and German car makers, which have substantial manufacturing operations that would be susceptible to a German injunction. Again, I believe even Deutsche Telekom and those automotive companies will ultimately just be coerced into taking licenses on unreasonable terms. But at least they have far more of a hardship argument than foreign companies that export their smartphones and similar devices to Germany.

As foreign companies with limited head counts in Germany, those three would have found it difficult to make much of an impact. If Huawei had joined, it could even have been counterproductive, considering that those opposing reform (such as Nokia) would presumably have tried to politicize the debate.

Whether Apple and Samsung should have done more, in quantitative as well as qualitative terms, is a question those companies will answer for themselves when this reform process is over. Where the process stands today, the most likely outcome is that they'll just spend more money on proportionality arguments (lawyers, experts) but those suing them will have basically the same leverage in negotiations as today. There's an asymmetry here: patent trolls, or companies that practically behave like trolls by suing companies they're not competing with, only stand something to gain, and nothing to lose. They typically wield portfolios, not individual patents, and they can sue in three or more different German venues as they need leverage in only one of them.

This is frustrating to watch. It must be far more frustrating for companies to find themselves on the receiving end of those lawsuits. I warned many of them a year ago, and earlier this year. I told them what was going wrong, and how they'd have had to fix it. There was some hope last month because the previous draft looked like the government had made concessions on the statute and simply hadn't updated the legislative rationale yet. Now that the legislative rationale suggests it's easier to spot a pink elephant in your garden than a German patent case in which an injunction would be denied over proportionality considerations, and with most reform advocates being bound to IP2I's misguided March 2020 submission proposing "Einzelfall," it's extremely hard to imagine a turnaround.

Besides IP2I, there's only one other major industry group pushing for reform, and that's the VDA (German automotive industry association). They have members such as Bosch that prevent them from taking really strong positions, and they lack IP policy expertise at the staff level. So it would be a surprise if they could solve the problem IP2I has created.

I'm quite sure I'll point to yesterday's posts as well as this one many times in the coming years whenever some high-profile German patent injunctions come down or the possibility of such injunctions forces companies into license agreements. I'll be looking out for that pink elephant, and maybe I'll spot one once every while, but I won't blame the judges for what is the only reasonable interpretation of this statute in light of the official commentary: you normally don't even have to conduct a full-blown proportionality analysis because defendants will fail to distinguish their situation from that of any other defendant who has the choice of simply taking a license.

Before the Bundestag (Federal Parliament) formally receives the bill, the Bundesrat (Federal Council) will analyze the proposal and make an official statement that is going to influence the parliamentary process. Chances are that the Federal Council will either say that even this reform proposal goes too far or that it's acceptable but will warn against seriously restricting access to patent injunctions. Some conservative politicians in the Federal Parliament will almost certainly prevent any impactful reform from being passed into law, and time is on their side as the end of the legislative term is approaching (and COVID complicates everything).

Follow @FOSSpatents

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Share|

Super Mario company paved the way for BMW and Daimler's invalidity defense against a Broadcom patent

There was a time when a video game console manufacturer like Nintendo and car makers like BMW and Daimler were technologically so far apart that one could hardly have imagined the same patent would get asserted against those three organizations. But times have changed, and a patent on programmable texture processing (a computer graphics patent) can now be alleged--whether with or without merit--to read on game consoles as well as car navigation systems (or other computing technology incorporated into a modern automobile).

There also was a time when filed pretty good amicus curiae briefs advocating reasonableness in patent enforcement (particularly, but not only, with respect to standard-essential patents). That, too, has changed.

Time is ticking away for some very old Broadcom patents on the verge of expiry. Last year, however, Broadcom forced the Volkswagen group into a billion-dollar settlement, exploiting the sad state of affairs of German patent law, where injunctions are granted--mnst of the time over patents that would later be held invalid--without an eBay v. MercExchange-like proportionality analysis. One of Europe's best patent judges believes Germany is in breach of EU law for that reason, and at a conference I recently organized in Brussels, a lawyer said the European Commission could, if it wanted, fine Germany for infringement of an EU directive.

The latest insanity--Germany-wide patent injunctions obtained by BlackBerry against Facebook and its WhatsApp and Instagram subsidiaries over four different (most likely invalid) software patents--shows that this situation is unsustainable. Germany's patent infringement judges unanimously oppose reform, but they're not going to be the ones to decide. At the most, they can influence the unelected officials at the ministry of justice, but the German legislature will make the actual decision.

Getting back to Broadcom's efforts to shake down the German automotive industry, it doesn't look like what worked against Volkswagen is too likely to work out the same way against BMW and Daimler--partly because time is not on Broadcom's side, and partly because Broadcom faces more resistance this time around.

Before Broadcom sued BMW and Daimler over EP1177531 on a "method and system for providing programmable texture processing," they also asserted that patent against Nintendo. The company known for video game consolers and for iconic game franchises like Super Mario and Pokémon was alleged to infringe that patent. But Nvidia then brought a nullity action (a complaint seeking invalidation of the patent by the Federal Patent Court of Germany), and Nintendo's lawyers from the Bardehle Pagenberg firm (which often defends BMW as well) convinced the Mannheim Regional Court that the patent was likely going to be annulled because an Nvidia chip sold before the patent's priority date already came with the technique the patent purports to cover.

Of Germany's leading patent infringement venues, the Mannheim Regional Court is by far and away the most responsible one when it comes to staying infringement actions over likely-invalid patents. Daimler will defend itself against a Nokia SEP case in Mannheim on Tuesday (December 10) as the court just confirmed to me on Friday.

Broadcom filed an interlocutory appeal against the order to stay the Nintendo case, and it remains to be seen what the appeals court--the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court, where Judge Andreas Voss ("Voß" in German) presides over the patent-specialized division--will decide. The Mannheim court stayed the cases against BMW and Daimler for the same reason as in the Nintendo case, but reminded the parties in its order to stay the case against Nintendo and the pending interlocutory appeal.

A Broadcom subsidiary named Avago has meanwhile lodged some patent infringement complaints against BMW and Daimler. Daimler will have until January 22, 2020 for its answer to the complaint. But the patent is set to expire a few months later. So Broadcom/Avago may never actually get to enforce an injunction. The timeline in the case against BMW remains to be seen. Avago interestingly brought a lawsuit against BMW in Hamburg, a venue in which I have so far not watched a single patent infringement case. While patent infringement suits can be brought in any federal district in the United States, Germany designates specific courts, and almost all patent cases are filed in Dusseldorf, Mannheim, and Munich. It's not unheard of for someone to file in Hamburg (or Frankfurt, Berlin, or Nuremberg), but it's highly unusual.

I asked BMW for further information on those cases, and after telling me they referred my inquiry to the spokesperson in charge of this topic, I never heard back. Daimler declined to provide any information other than expressing the view that the complaint is meritless. So I had to tape some other sources.

Follow @FOSSpatents

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Share|

Brussels conference (12 Nov) on component-level SEP licensing: roster of speakers almost finalized

I have an update on the upcoming (November 12, 2019) Brussels conference on component-level standard-essential patent (SEP) licensing (for a reminder, here's the registration link). We'll have a roster of really great speakers representing a diversity of perspectives and opinions. I will soon publish the final conference program with all names, but for a preview, let me introduce the moderators and speakers I can already announce--in the order of their planned appearances:

The first session in the morning will be a discussion panel touching on the implications of component-level licensing, or companies' refusal to engage in it, from an antitrust and contract law perspective. There will be a total of four panelists, and I'll ask the questions. As of today I can announce two of the panelists: Pat Treacy is a competition lawyer and partner with Bristows, and a part-time judge on the Chancery Division of the High Court of England and Wales. Paul Lugard is a partner at BakerBotts who has represented clients from many industries (including, but not limited to, consumer electronics and telecommunications) vis-à-vis the European Commission.

Dave Djavaherian, the founder of PacTech Law, served as associate general counsel at Broadcom (I met him at the time as certain Broadcom customers faced lawsuits in Germany). Dave has a wealth of experience in licensing, litigating, and arbitrating SEP matters--and is deeply involved with standards development and policy making (for an example, as vice chair of CWA2).

Two executives from innovative European companies will share experiences in seeking component-level licenses: Nordic Semiconductor's CTO Svein-Egil Nielsen, and AirTies' co-founder and CTO Metin Taskin.

Professor Joachim Henkel teaches technology and innovation management at the Technical University of Munich, and was a visiting scholar at University College London, MIT Sloan School of Management, Harvard Business School, and Singapore Management University. Professor Henkel recently updated his paper entitled "How many patents are valid? Extent, causes, and remedies for latent patent invalidity," the first version of which I mentioned five years ago. His focus at next month's conference will be on the economics of patent licensing.

John "Jay" Jurata is an Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe partner and the leader of the firm's global antitrust practice. I've linked to some of his writings in the past, such as an article on Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim's SEP policy positions and one on the Unwired Planet global FRAND rate case that the Supreme Court of the UK will hear in about a week from today.

Eric Stasik, the founder and director of consulting firm Avvika AB, provides assistance and guidance to firms engaged in commercial patent license negotiations (both patent holders and potential licensees), particularly within the field of mobile communications. I've seen his expert reports in various SEP cases involving FRAND licensing questions, and while we've often disagreed on LinkedIn, we get along well and maintain a constructive dialog. Eric's 20+ years of SEP licensing experience include 10 years of working for Ericsson (1992-2002), initially as a senior patent engineer and later as Drector of IPR and Licensing for Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (the corporate parent of the entire Ericsson group). He'll comment on the fallout from FTC v. Qualcomm against the background of his hands-on licensing expertise.

Evelina Kurgonaite became Executive Director of the Fair Standards Alliance earlier this year. Previously, she was Head of Policy Strategy and Legal Counsel at Samsung. She also worked for PaRR (Policy and Regulatory Report). Evelina will analyze the the FTC v. Qualcomm decision from the perspective of whether a similar outcome would be possible under EU antitrust law.

Rafał Sikorski is a professor of law (with a focus on IP as well as competition law) at Adam Mickiewicz University (Poznan, Poland) and a senior partner at SMM Legal. He's a sought-after conference speaker. He gave very well-received speeches at a Munich conference on injunctive relief earlier this year (where Judge Robart and (soon-to-be Lord) Justice Arnold also spoke). At my Brussels conference, Professor Sikorski will talk about certain SEP-related antitrust complaints.

Kent Baker, Head of IP Strategy & Licensing at u-blox (a company headquartered in Switzerland and selling positioning and wireless communication technologies around the globe), will discuss the U.S. Continental v. Avanci et al. case.

Edmund Mangold, a co-inventor of multiple patents, is patent counsel at BMW. Mr. Mangold will introduce the panel on access to injunctive relief and later join fellow panelists Maurits Dolmans, a Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton partner who represents major clients such as Google, IBM (for whom he recently secured unconditional approval of the acquisition of Red Hat) and Walt Disney in the EU (and is also admitted to practice in the United States), and Bram Nijhof, who heads Taylor Wessing's competition, EU and trade practice group in the Netherlands. I will ask the panelists a few questions about patent injunctions, not only related to SEPs but also with a view to the ongoing patent reform process in Germany.

This conference will touch on certain hot topics that some people prefer not to talk (or even not to think) about. I took this initiative because I felt it was time to organize an event with that focus. It will be an honor to welcome such top-notch speakers in a month from today. And if you'd like to come and listen, here's a link to the registration page, again.

As I've mentioned on another occasion, there will be a comparable event in the San Francisco Bay Area in mid-January, and I expect to be able to share some more information on that one next month.

Follow @FOSSpatents

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Share|

Meet the patent trolls of the 2030s: Bosch, Volkswagen, Daimler, BMW

Four days before the 67th International Motor Show (IAA) in Frankfurt will end, I'd like to offer a bold prediction: unless a miracle of the kind I can't imagine happens, Germany's automotive industry (car manufacturers as well as suppliers) will suffer a fate similar to that of the smartphone divisions of the likes of Nokia and Ericsson, ultimately resulting in "trollification" by the 2030s.

As Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung noted last month, 52% of all patent filings related to self-driving cars belong to German companies, with Bosch alone (which is number one and followed by Audi and Continental)holding three times as many patents in that field as Google and Apple or Tesla not having any significant patent holdings in that field yet. Besides Bosch, Audi, and Continental, three other German companies are among the top 10 patent holders in this field: BMW, Volkswagen, and Daimler.

Patent filings related to self-driving cars are picking up speed, so the landscape will almost certainly change in some ways in the coming years, but not entirely.

So far, major automotive companies have not used patents aggressively. Much to the contrary, they often find themselves on the receiving end of patent troll lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas and elsewhere, and they tend to support reasonable royalties (such as through the Fair Standards Alliance) and defensive initiatives (including a fake one--"fake" because it's merely about making a statement and doesn't solve a single patent-related problem ever--called Open Invention Network). I'm not aware of any major dispute between two large car makers. Apparently they work out cross-licensing deals quietly and amicably.

But that's because right now those companies are in the business of selling vehicles (and related services), not in the patent assertion business. While it may seem daring to talk in 2017 about what's going to happen in the 2030s (if not before), I am fairly convinced (not 100%, but way above 50%) that we're less than two decades away from the point at which Germany's automotive industry is going to enforce patents aggressively and try to shake down the future winners in the marketplace.

I believe Germany's leading car makers--and some of their key suppliers--are going to be in only a slightly better position than the smartphone divisions of companies like Nokia and Ericsson were when Apple and the Android ecosystem revolutionized the concept of a mobile communications device. I said "slightly better" because brands like BMW and Mercedes have been very strong for several times longer than Nokia's brand at the time of the iOS/Android revolution. Those brands are associated with certain strengths, some of which will remain important even in the self-driving electric future. But apart from that factor, those companies are practically doomed and will have to resort to patent licensing in less than 20 years' time. They won't disappear into oblivion too quickly, but over time they will, and there will be a long period during which they will still be around and you'll still see Mercedes stars on the roads, but where most of the revenue opportunity will belong to leading U.S. technology companies.

One challenge that those German automotive companies may somehow manage to overcome--though they haven't so far--is the one of creating good user interfaces. I've had an S-Class for a few years and the UI is just simply not well-thought-out. One example is the big button that also serves as a wheel. When using voice control to dial a number from my history of calls, that button means "Yes, this number" in one situation and "No, abort the operation" less than a second later--something that would be completely unthinkable at a company like Apple or Google. Another example is that they waste space on the screen by showing the city of a destination before the street name (which then often doesn't fit on the screen at all, or must be abbreviated beyond recognition). Those are simple things, and while it's astounding that Mercedes would ever have come up with a stupidly-designed user interface in the first place, they--and their competitors--may figure this part out over time.

Maybe someone will explain to their software developers the concept of a race condition because the way the thing intermittently fails to activate functions when starting up--or the way the UI occasionally freezes when dialing--suggests to me they have one or more of those in their code. Maybe they'll even understand that they should keep track of the last cities I navigated to so I don't have to select the same city again and again when entering a destination. And who knows, maybe they'll realize one day that they should provide free firmware updates from time to time to keep customers happy, especially when you have really nasty bugs in your software (as they do). Again, none of that is rocket science.

The bigger issues are of the strategic kind. For decades they have largely relied on a core competence: combustion engines, which involve about 200 times as many parts as electric motors. Daimler once invested in Tesla, then exited. With more foresight, it would have acquired it while it still had the chance. Anyway, those companies will lose their #1 competitive advantage.

Once Silicon Valley companies are the technology leaders (which Tesla in some ways already is) in the automotive industry, Germany's automotive companies will also struggle in the "war for talent." Most of the world's best software developers either already are in the United States or are potentially receptive to offers from such world-class employers as Google, where they can make a lot more money than at BMW, like Daimler or Volkswagen, get perks that are heard of in Germany, and often get to work on more interesting stuff. There will always be some talented developers who will choose to come to or stay in Germany, but a majority of the world's best programmers won't even consider Germany, period. Frankly, the cost-benefit ratio of learning German--a hard language to learn and of very limited use--is inferior, and most programmers already speak a least a little bit of English. In all likelihood, the average Google or Apple programmer will simply be better than his counterparts at German automotive companies, and if Apple or Google wanted to hire a very talented person away from a Volkswagen or BMW, they could in most instances.

Even if those German automotive companies figured out the digital user experience (which is doable) and even if they built better electric cars over time, there is, however, one thing that's simply going to marginalize them. It's that self-driving cars will be mobile communications devices on wheels. Speed and similar success factors of the old times aren't going to matter anymore at all. Instead, it's all going to be about what you can do while the car is doing all the driving.

The most lucrative parts of the car value chain are going to relate to productivity, communications, and entertainment applications. Plus all sorts of e-commerce (including "sharing economy"-style) services.

Those parts of the value chain will, without the slightest doubt, belong to such companies as Apple, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft. Of those companies, Apple is believed to be working on a car of its own and even made a joke about it at a corporate event. The others--especially Google--will be open to partnering (as they're already doing in some areas) with such companies as Daimler. But they're going to have all the leverage because of a force that is far more powerful than the leadership of traditional automotive companies presumably knows: network effects.

Short of developing something that would have to be several times more revolutionary than the iPhone was ten years ago, there's absolutely no way that BMW, Daimler and Volkswagen--even if they agreed to a three-way merger and secured regulatory approval for it--could ever get sufficient traction among app developers so they could compete effectively with Apple and Google. Even Microsoft with Windows Phone and with all of its money couldn't.

My app is in the final testing stage. We'll launch in a first market (probably New Zealand, where other games have also been launched early) in a couple of weeks and will quickly expand from there before finally launching in the United States. I know what drives platform choices. A few years ago I thought I would start on Android, then wanted to serve both major platforms at the same time, and ultimately decided to do iOS first, Android later. Before I would consider any other platform, we'd most likely do Mac and Apple TV versions of our game. Thereafter? Maybe, maybe, maybe even a Windows version at some point. But a Mercedes/BMW/Volkswagen version? I just don't see that happen.

Using Android on open-source terms won't be a viable option (at least nowhere outside China). Android is open-source in some ways but proprietary in others. It's no secret that most Android device makers aren't really profitable. Automotive companies can still make low-margin hardware in the future. But the biggest revenue streams are going to pass them by.

Also, a high percentage of the people buying premium cars are Apple customers, and their loyalty to Apple is simply stronger. Just this week I was thinking about this when I saw a German car with an Apple sticker on it. I was thinking to myself: Would anyone do it the other way round and put a Mercedes or BMW logo on an iPhone or a MacBook? Or a Volkswagen logo on an iPad? Obviously not.

Follow @FOSSpatents

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Share|

Automotive companies fighting for FRAND: Daimler, Hyundai join Fair Standards Alliance

About four to five years ago, there was a time when "FRAND Patents" would have been a more suitable name for this blog than "FOSS Patents": the pursuit of sales and important bans over standard-essential patents (iun violation of pledges to license them to all comers on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms), royalty demands far out of the FRAND ballpark and exorbitant damages claims were the three most important symptoms of a huge underlying problem, and I did what I could to shed some light on what was going on and going wrong.

While I'm glad that some of the worst potential consequences were avoided at the time, I have realized that there is some unfinished business in that area. Antitrust settlements and court decisions were helpful. Some of them, such as Judge Posner's 2012 Apple v. Motorola ruling, were really great. But attempts to abuse FRAND-pledged SEPs are still rampant. Various SEP owners are still seeking injunctions (not in all jurisdictions but definitely in some). Royalty demands and damages claims still appear to be out of line in too many cases.

Why hasn't the problem been solved yet?

• For the most part, courts solved problems only in narrow contexts. Even Judge Robart's rate-setting decision in Microsoft v. Motorola (2013), which was wonderful in some ways, had a major shortcoming: it didn't require Motorola to base its royalty claims on the smallest saleable unit implementing a given standard, such as a WiFi chip for IEEE 802.11 patents or a baseband chip for patents on cellular network standards.

• Antitrust authorities stopped short of establishing clear, bright-line rules. Instead, they entered into settlements with major loopholes. I particularly criticized, at the time, the FTC's Google/Motorola consent decree.

That said, I do have hope that significant progress will be made over the next few years:

• Judges and competition enforcers can easily see that what was done a few years ago was generally good but simply not enough.

• Android companies (Google and certain device makers) weren't the "perfect" FRAND offenders to crack down on as they weren't repeat offenders or aggressors. What they did was just retaliation for attacks on Google's Android mobile operating system and the related ecosystem. They hadn't done this before (Motorola maybe, but not Google, which owned Motorola at the height of the smartphone patent wars). They haven't done it since. What they wanted then was not to cause damage to the concept of FRAND licensing: at the most they were prepared to accept collateral damage in order to end the smartphone patent wars on the basis of (more or less) zero-zero license deals.

  Google's antitrust lawyers stressed all the time that their client hadn't drawn first blood -- and they pointed to assertions of patents on de facto industry standards and to what they called "commercially essential" patents. Microsoft said something very accurate at the time: two wrongs don't make a right. Unfortunately, however, regulatory agencies are controlled by politicians, and they just didn't want to take sides in the ecosystem wars between Android rivals and the Android ecosystem. As a result, some of the world's worst SEP abusers benefited from what Google/Motorola, Samsung and others were doing (and from those companies' political weight). But times have changed. Earlier this year, Google joined the Fair Standards Alliance. It's now fighting the good fight for FRAND.

• The pro-FRAND coalition is now more broadbased and more powerful than ever. Case in point, I received a press release today from the Fair Standards Alliance announcing that Daimler and Hyundai have joined the Brussels-based organization, joining major IT companies such as Google, HP, Cisco, Intel, Dell, and Juniper Networks as well as rival car manufacturers Volkswagen, BMW, and Tesla.

  They are profoundly concerned about abusive assertions of patents on wireless and IoT (Internet of things) industry standards. That concern isn't new: automotive companies frequently have to defend themselves against patent assertions (in the Eastern District of Texas and elsewhere). I'm not allowed to disclose the name publicly but I also gave some advice a few years back to a major German automotive company, and I've talked to lawyers defending such companies in court. But if the problem wasn't huge, those organizations wouldn't have joined the Fair Standards Alliance.

Let's give meaning to FRAND. I'll make my little contribution again by blogging about FRAND developments, not only but also in a litigation context.

If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google+.

Follow @FOSSpatents

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Share|

Nokia completes next stage of transformation into patent troll with sale of HERE to automotive consortium

Nokia has just made the following announcement:

"Nokia completes next stage of transformation with agreement to sell HERE to automotive industry consortium at an enterprise value of EUR 2.8 billion"

The buyers are Audi, BMW, and Daimler. I once did a consulting project, unrelated to this transaction and more generally about IP strategy, for one of them (I closed my consulting business about a year ago, however, in order to focus on app development). It's a really positive sign that these traditional industry players decided to join forces (they're on better terms with each other than major smartphone makers, but don't coalesce every day) and to outbid the likes of Uber.

All three of them--I know their products fairly well because I've repeatedly bought cars from two of them and driven long-term rental cars from the remaining one--have a lot of work to do to defend their turf against Silicon Valley companies like Tesla, Google, and Apple (AppleInsider's Mikey Campbell is a great source on that secretive project). It's ridiculous that, for example, Mercedes doesn't even provide its customers (I'm driving a 2014 S-Class) with frequent software updates the way Tesla does. And I've seen massive user experience deficiencies in the user interfaces of all three of them, including stuff of the kind that is as crazy as the removal of the Start button from Windows was but would presumably get people fired (or never even hired in the first place) at a company like Apple.

For example, the list of recent destinations of my car's navigation system, which has an ultrawide screen (two, actually, but I'm speaking of the one relevant to this problem here), often displays the city and even the county before the street, which means that the street name doesn't appear (for space constraints, even on an ultrawide screen) until I select a list entry. That just makes no sense in a country in which streets have fairly distinct names and one rarely has destinations with identical street names in two cities. Another example: the same button that can be used to select a phone number while using voice control will get the entire operation aborted if you hit it again in order to dial, though you would use that very button to dial without voice control. These examples show that a company like Daimler may understand wheels and brakes, but hasn't (yet) figured out screen layout and user interface design. Today's announcement is not the only indication of progress. The Mercedes F 015 is also very exciting.

With the F 015 being many years off, my next car will most likely be a Tesla, and I will definitely consider an Apple or Google car once available. Still I hope that those automotive companies, who have now demonstrated that they increasingly invest in digital technologies, will learn about user experience up to the CEO level, will change their development cycles and business model so they can deliver frequent and free updates to customers, will dump fossil fuels before customers dump their products, and and will do all of that in time before companies like Apple, Google and Tesla will, in a hypothetical worst-case scenario, turn them into the next Nokia.

Talking about the Nokia we know, I think the headline of this blog post is an accurate modification of the headline of today's Nokia press release: the "next stage of transformation" here relates to Nokia's trollification. By selling the HERE mapping business, Nokia has divested yet another product business. It was a licensing business, but a licensing business in which customers got something real and functional, as opposed to paying up for overbroad and often invalid (at least that's what German courts thought when Nokia sued HTC and ViewSonic a couple of years ago) patents.

Nokia's acquisition of Alcatel-Lucent has received regulatory clearance in the U.S. and Europe. Today's press release says the deal is expected to "close in the first half of 2016." It would be nice if this resulted in Nokia again focusing a bit more on actual products, but I'm very skeptical.

I guess it won't take long before numerous former Alcatel-Lucent patents show up in various lawsuits brought by patent assertion entities (PAEs). No company in the industry appears to be nearly as active and agressive in connection with privateering as Nokia. In May, Nokia and Ericsson sought to justify their privateering ways after IAM (Intellectual Asset Management) Magazine wrote about this topic, citing this blog.

Audi, BMW and Daimler will probably be among the targets of such patent assertions, given that cars are increasingly smartphones on wheels...

If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google+.

Follow @FOSSpatents

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Share|