Saturday, March 25Welcome

Patent Experts Ask Kanter to Reject Calls to Destroy Avanci Business Review Letters

“The authors of the Nov. 30 letter noted that the Oct. 17 letter “perpetuated long-standing misunderstandings by some academics, policy activists, and corporations, and that unilateral “patent holdups” were rampant in the tech industry. It claims that it continues to claim that it does.”

business review letterA group of 25 intellectual property law professionals today wrote to Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Jonathan Cantor, endorsing the Business Review letter. commercial institution.

The letter is also a response to a previous letter on October 17, 2022 by 28 former government officials, professors and public interest advocates urging AAG to reconsider its Business Review Letter.

Avanci’s Business Review Letter was issued by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division on July 28, 2020. DOJ, in its letter, plans to license patent claims declared essential to implementing his 5G in cars.Avanci’s licensing platform will not stifle industry competition. . Business Review Letters represent guidance from the DOJ to inform businesses on how best to ensure they do not violate antitrust laws.

The authors of the November 30 letter said the October 17 letter “perpetuates a long-standing misconception by some academics, policy activists and businesses that the tech industry is facing a unilateral” patent holdup. “continues to claim that it is endemic.”

The October 17 letter noted that the DOJ’s decision created patent pools and incentives for “patent trolls … to act in concert to harm automakers, parts suppliers, and American consumers.” said.

November 30 letter

A November 30 letter endorsing the Justice Department’s 2020 Business Review Letter was signed by 25 former judges, government officials, legal scholars and economists.

One of the main motives for this letter was to reply to a letter of October 17 sent to Cantor. The authors of the Nov. 30 letter argued that the Oct. 17 letter evoked “patent troll rhetoric defaming virtually any party involved in patent licensing and related monetization deals.” Did.

They added that the “patent troll” allegation was not based on empirical evidence and that the authors of the October 17 letter mischaracterized several court decisions, adding that the outcome of these cases was ” suggested it was the result of hold-up tactics by so-called “patent trolls.” “”actually,”[t]His reality is just the opposite. ”

Instead, according to the November 30 letter, the court in the case used as an example in the October 17 letter ordered an injunction because the implementer was found to be an unwilling licensee engaging in holdout tactics. issued a relief by Permits past and continuing use of valid patents of SEP holders. ”

In a letter dated October 17, the signatories of November 30 objected to the use of “decades-old theories and models that have erroneously predicted impeding innovation, increasing prices and harming consumers in mobile communications.” also raised an issue.

The theories in question are “patent holdup” and “royalty stacking,” among others. The Nov. 30 letter cites studies that “raise great doubts about the factual credibility of these theories.”

Rather than being held back by high royalty rates, the authors of the Nov. 30 letter cited a study that “manufacturers consistently estimate total royalties paid in the single digits.” I’m here.

Instead, the November 30 letter upheld the principle of “good faith negotiation of license terms based on a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) royalty rate,” and the authors argued that “radio It claims to support a “thriving ecosystem in technology.”

The letter was signed by many prominent IP experts, advocates, judges, former government officials, economists and law professors, including Alden Abbott, former general counsel to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. His Paul Michel, Chief Justice (retired) of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). Kathleen M. O’Malley, CAFC Circuit Judge (retired). Ronald A. Cass, former Vice Chairman and Commissioner of the United States International Trade Commission. Douglas H. Ginsburg Senior Circuit Judge and former Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Damon C. Matteo, former chairman of the USPTO’s Patent Publication Advisory Board. Richard A. Epstein, Law Professor at New York University School of Law. Kristen Osenga, Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, Professor of Law, University of Richmond. Stephen Haber, Professor at Stanford University. Such as David J. Teece, Professor of Management and Chair of Global Business at the University of California, Berkeley.

Letter of October 17

The 28 signatories to the Oct. 17 letter said the DOJ’s 2020 letter should be reconsidered because it “could further portend future harm as 5G is more fully deployed.” said.

They argued that the DOJ letter undermines bipartisan legal and economic consensus that abuse of SEP practices can be “harmful to innovation, competition, and consumers.”

Further, the signatories allege that DOJ relied on a “doubtful position” that failed to consider how Avanci’s refusal to license its suppliers would violate FRAND terms. It is included.

Finally, the October 17 letter cites real-world events in support of the DOJ’s concerns about the letter. They argued that Avanci’s existing 2G/3G/4G patent pool is “already harming competition and consumers.”

The author cites multiple lawsuits filed against automakers by Avanci members in the United States, Germany, and Japan. They argued that the Justice Department’s assumptions “have power.”[d] Companies have to take their products off the market and risk going out of business long before a decision of invalidity (or infringement) is made. ”

The October 17 letter is from Michael A. Professor of the Alex H. Rutgers School of Law at the Public Interest Institute of Patent Law. John Bergmeier of Public Knowledge. Charles Duan, Senior Policy Fellow of the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, and American University Washington Law School. Mitch Stoltz of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

where is the evidence?

Adam Mozoff, a law professor at George Mason University who co-authored today’s letter with Jonathan Barnett, a law professor at the University of Southern California, told IPWatchdog about the competition’s response in an October 17 letter. Claims about harm, already embodied as a result of the Avanci pool, are plainly false and are not supported by economic evidence.

“While the Oct. 17 letter makes bald claims, backed by quotes from blogs and editorials calling SEP holders ‘patent trolls,’ consumers and competition are embracing new mobile communications. It claims to have suffered from hyper-optimal usage fees charged for its services and features. Added to Connected Cars. The letter does not cite any economic evidence or studies to support these arguments. There is none. Just as there is no empirical or economic study to confirm the “patent holdup” or “royalty stacking” theory, these are not evidence-backed arguments. is simply repeating the same old theory in a new commercial context, and seems to be involved in the old propaganda tactic that repetition makes something true. ”

Image Source: Deposit Photo
Image ID: 36317893
Author: Rajiv Singh

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *