Delving Into the EU’S Draft Regulations on SEP Licensing

“Overall, both SEP owners and implementers could benefit from the increased transparency these regulations could bring to FRAND negotiations.”

SEP Licensing In late March, news broke that the European Commission was drafting sweeping regulations on the licensing of standard essential patents (SEPs). Commentators predict the draft will be released in late April and, although this is an early draft that will likely evolve, below we offer the following initial observations.

Details of the Draft Regulations

In its current form, the new regulatory framework would encourage increased transparency in SEP licensing through several new policies and procedures. In particular, the regulations would establish a “competence center” at the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to act as a sort of clearinghouse for SEP issues (both technical and economic). The EUIPO does not currently have patent expertise; EP patents are the purview of the European Patent Office (EPO), which is separate from the European Union and includes non-EU members.

The competence center would be tasked with:

  • Maintaining a register of SEPs
  • Maintaining a database of SEP case law and determinations of “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory” (FRAND) terms and royalties
  • Assessing the essentiality of SEPs
  • Administering aggregate FRAND royalty determinations
  • Administering individual FRAND rate determinations.

Importantly, before enforcing its SEPs in any European court (including the Unified Patent Court), an SEP owner would be required to register its SEPs with and obtain an assessment of the fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) rate from the EUIPO (although the current draft includes loopholes that could allow an SEP owner to avoid the latter requirement in certain circumstances). SEP registration would be a rather straightforward matter. The FRAND rate determination, however, would be a formal mediation-style process presided by two “conciliators” and involve limited discovery, written submissions, witnesses (including experts) and potentially an oral hearing. The draft places a nine-month time limit on the FRAND rate determination and the costs would be borne by both parties.

The EUIPO will also conduct essentiality checks of select claimed SEPs. Such a check would be performed by an anonymous evaluator. An SEP owner may propose up to 100 of its SEPs to be checked for essentiality, and the EUIPO will annually select a sample of SEPs from each owner and each standard for checks. The SEP owner may have multiple opportunities to file observations and responses to third-party observations during the essentiality check process. The role of third parties (such as potential implementers of a standard), however, would be limited to filing observations on SEPs already chosen for an essentiality check and requesting “peer evaluation” of the results. The SEP owner would bear the cost of essentiality checks. Although not legally binding, the regulations explicitly state that an essentiality check can be used as evidence in subsequent negotiations and litigation. An essentiality check would not, however, be a prerequisite for enforcing an SEP. Interestingly, the draft regulations would require the EUIPO to register preexisting essentiality checks conducted by an independent evaluator.

The process of determining an aggregate FRAND royalty to apply to the entire standardized technology would be largely driven by SEP owners. An unspecified number of “contributors to a standard” can notify the EUIPO about an aggregate royalty by submitting specified information, including a proposed aggregate royalty, within 90 days after the release of the standard. This notification can later be revised by the SEP owners. Additionally, on request of 10% of all contributors to a standard within a specified timeframe after the release of the standard, the EUIPO will mediate discussions for an aggregate royalty. At least 5% of contributors and/or five implementers can request a nonbinding expert opinion on the aggregate royalty from the EUIPO. The relevant standard-setting organization and stakeholders (including SEP owners and implementers) would be notified of such a request and any stakeholder could participate in the process (e.g., by submitting information to the panel of conciliators assigned to issue the opinion). The regulations explicitly state that SEP owners should consider giving micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises more favorable terms, however, terms would not be considered in determining FRAND for larger entities. On this point, the regulations appear to be inconsistent with the commitment that FRAND licensing be non-discriminatory and that each licensee (whether large or small) be treated similarly. For example, in its recent InterDigital v. Lenovo opinion, the UK High Court of Justice explicitly rejected an SEP owner’s disparate treatment of small and large entities to be non-FRAND.

Impact

Overall, both SEP owners and implementers could benefit from the increased transparency these regulations could bring to FRAND negotiations. Some aspects favor SEP implementers. For example, the requirement that an SEP owner would need to obtain a FRAND determination from the EUIPO before demanding FRAND royalties or enforcing its SEPs would add delay and risk to the enforcement process. By requesting that SEP holders agree to an aggregate royalty, the European Commission is signaling a preference for a top-down FRAND royalty calculation, which is typically preferred by implementers because it allows them to calculate the total aggregate royalties that will need to be paid when implementing a particular standard. For these reasons, the new regulations could steer SEP owners away from European venues.

That said, the draft also offers benefits to SEP owners. The proposed nine-month timeline for FRAND rate mediation is substantially faster than most SEP license negotiations. The essentiality checks and aggregate FRAND royalty determination are driven primarily by SEP owners, with only limited input from implementers.

This is an interesting development, but it is important to remember that the draft is in its early stages still. Whether it will come into force, including with any amendments, is rather unpredictable. Commentators have already flagged potential constitutional issues with the draft that will need to be sorted out in the coming months (and years). Nevertheless, it appears that SEP owners and implementers are already mobilizing in an effort to lobby European legislators to support and/or critique the regulations.

Image Source: Deposit Photos
Image ID:389604330
Copyright:artursz 

Share

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com.

Join the Discussion

2 comments so far.

  • [Avatar for Roderick McConnell]
    Roderick McConnell
    April 22, 2023 12:20 pm

    In reponse to Eli Mazour’s comments, I see no delay: a negotiated license cannot succeed if the licensor and licensee don’t agree on a rate. If both parties agree, then nothing is stalled. If the parties don’t agree, then an expert recommendation is surely a good next step – and a useful data point if it does come to litigation. Indeed, in the European framework – as Judge Mellor recently wrote – you can’t know if a licensee was willing to accept a FRAND rate until you know what a FRAND rate is. So the FRAND rate determination may even speed the conclusion of litigation.
    To the second point, I don’t see why an essentiality determination should depend on the person making the evaluation. Using litigation to check essentiality seems to me particularly inefficient as compared to a dedicated Agency, and once the evaluation is complete, it can always be challenged in court. I think there are many Agency decisions – like for consumer safety – which are then open to challenge in the courts.

  • [Avatar for Eli Mazour]
    Eli Mazour
    April 22, 2023 06:30 am

    Thank your for writing the piece but your conclusion that “the draft also offers benefits to SEP owners” is surprising.

    Few questions:

    1) Isn’t the “mediation” non-binding? Wouldn’t implementers just use the process to further stall SEP license negotiations / ability of innovators to seek court remedies?

    2) how will essentiality checks be primarily driven by SEP owners when *anonymous evaluators* will make the decisions? Wouldn’t a faceless bureaucrat hold all the power and have zero accountability?

Varsity Sponsors

IPWatchdog Events

Patent Portfolio Management Masters™ 2024
June 24 @ 1:00 pm - June 26 @ 2:00 pm EDT
Webinar – Sponsored by LexisNexis
August 22 @ 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm EDT
Women’s IP Forum
August 26 @ 11:00 am - August 27 @ 5:00 pm EDT
IP Solutions, Services & Platforms Expo
September 9 @ 1:00 pm - September 10 @ 2:00 pm EDT
Webinar – Sponsored by Anaqua
September 19 @ 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm EDT

From IPWatchdog