Marco Botta and Klaus Wiedemann ‘EU Competition Law Enforcement vis-à-vis Exploitative Conducts in the Data Economy’ Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 18-08

This long paper (90 pages), which can be found here, seeks to understand how traditional principles of EU law – particularly those related to exploitative abuses and respective remedies – apply to new business models that mainly rely on processing large amounts of users’ data. The analysis does not extend to the US because, following Trinko, the authors consider that antitrust law there does not extend to exploitative practices, even if the FTC has powers under the Sherman Act to pursue such practices under consumer and unfair practices law. I am afraid the review is rather long, because this paper’s contents are the equivalent of multiple articles. The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides an overview of European case law vis-à-vis exploitative abuses. Art. 102 TFEU lists a number of exploitative abuses. Nevertheless, the European Commission has long focused on investigating exclusionary, rather than exploitative abuses. While this has led to limited case law on exploitative abuses, the authors identify…

Ariel Ezrachi on ‘EU Competition Law Goals and The Digital Economy’ (2018) Report for BEUC – The European Consumer Organisation

This paper  can be found here. I have already reviewed it in an earlier post. At the time, I focused on the article’s overview of the goals of EU competition law. However, the article also contained a detailed discussion of the impact that the digital economy may have on these goals. I was unable to review this discussion then, so I propose to do it here. Competition policy is one of several instruments used to advance the goals of the European Treaties. According to the European Commission, competition on the market is protected as a means of enhancing consumer welfare and of ensuring an efficient allocation of resources. This notwithstanding, EU competition law has also consistently been held to protect ‘not only the interests of competitors or of consumers, but also the structure of the market and, in so doing, competition as such.’ Moreover, a genuinely indigenous objective is worthy of note, namely that of promoting European market integration. In addition…

Philippe Aghion, Stefan Bechtold, Lea Cassar and Holger Herz ‘The Causal Effects of Competition on Innovation: Experimental Evidence’ (2018) The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 34(2) 162

This paper, which can be found here, adds to the literature on the relationship between competition and innovation, which has been the subject of longstanding attention by economists. However, existing empirical studies on competition and innovation suffer from a number of limitations. The authors seek to address these limitations as regards a specific type of innovation models – so called ‘Step-by-Step Innovation Models’. Their study shows that, as long as key assumptions of the step-by-step innovation model are met, theoretical predictions of this model are confirmed by laboratory empirical data. Section 2 looks at ‘Step-by-Step Innovation Models’. The main characteristic of step-by-step innovation models when compared with previous Schumpeterian models (where competition is for the market) is that innovation incentives do not depend on post-innovation rents only, but rather on the difference between post-innovation and pre-innovation rents of incumbent firms. In the basic model setup, an industry consists of two firms which produce the same good and compete over selling the…

Peter Georg Picht  ‘FRAND determination in TCL v. Ericsson and Unwired Planet v. Huawei: Same same but different?’ Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 18-07

This paper, which can be found here,  compares Unwired Planet/Huawei – a UK case reviewed here, and which appeal was discussed last week – and TCL/Ericsson, a US case. TCL deals with Ericsson-owned SEPs and Ericsson-granted licences, while Unwired Planet focuses on SEPs acquired by Unwired Planet from Ericsson. While looking at similar sets of facts, the courts arrived at different conclusions regarding how to determine FRAND royalty rates. This paper argues that this difference arises from the courts’ take on two core approaches in FRAND royalty calculation – “top-down” and “comparable prior licences” (‘Comparables’). Unwired Planet can be said to have favoured a ‘Comparables’ approach, while TCL looks more favourably at the top-down approach. The paper contends that both methods are important in FRAND licensing, it is unlikely that either a top-down or Comparables approach will – or should – prevail as the obviously best approach to complex cases. The paper is structured as follows: Section II provides the…

Gunther Friedl and Christoph Ann ‘A cost-based approach for calculating royalties for standard-essential patents (SEPs)’(2018) The Journal of World Intellectual Property 21 369

This article, which can be found here, proposes a novel approach for calculating FRAND royalties, based upon average total cost per patent plus a reasonable return for the patent holder. Unlike the methods discussed in the paper above – which focus on the value of a patent – this method is cost-based. The paper is structured as follows: An introductory section explains why standards are important and why FRAND obligations are imposed. A significant increase in the relevance of standards can be predicted in the near future. Industry 4.0 will greatly increase the degree to which industrial processes will depend upon the exchange of information not only between people, but also between toolkits, that is, between “hardware.” The same holds true for a number of new technologies such as autonomous driving, data compression, or 3D printing. Standard-setting organizations (SSOs) are tasked with the development and creation of standards by identifying and selecting the most suitable technologies for the standard. It goes…

Is there a duty to license Standard Essential Patents to competitors? FTC v Qualcomm Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK C. Nor

This post will discuss a summary judgment by a district court in California – the one responsible for most cases in Silicon Valley – on whether Qualcomm’s refusal to license its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) to competitors infringed the non-discrimination limb of RAND commitments and, by extension, s. 5 of the FTC Act. The decision is available here. Background Cellular communications depend on widely distributed networks that implement cellular communications standards. These standards promote availability and interoperability of standardized products regardless of geographic boundaries. Standard-setting organizations (“SSOs”) – such as the Telecommunications Industry Association (“TIA”) and the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (“ATIS”) in the United States, and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (“ETSI”) in Europe – have emerged to develop and manage the relevant cellular standards. The cellular communications standards that SSOs develop and adopt may incorporate patented technology. In order to prevent the owner of a patent essential to complying with the standard—the “SEP holder”—from blocking implementation of…

When is a licence FRAND? The Court of Appeal judgment in Unwired Planet v Huawei

This judgment – which can be found here – is on appeal from Unwired Planet v Huawei judgment on the licensing of Standard Essential Patents (SEP) that I reviewed here. The Court of Appeal begins by explaining the link between the potential for anticompetitive abuse of SEPs and the imposition of FRAND licensing terms. After all: ‘the potential for anti-competitive behaviour is obvious. The owner of a SEP has the potential ability to “hold-up” users after the adoption and publication of the standard either by refusing to license the SEP or by extracting excessive royalty fees for its use, and in that way to prevent competitors from gaining effective access to the standard and the part of the telecommunications market to which it relates.’ It then moves on to review the factual background of the case and the High Court’s decision. In short, Unwired Planet acquired patents from Ericson that cover many of the foundational technologies that allow mobile devices…

Ashish Bharadwaj ‘A note on the neglected issue of reverse patent holdup’. (2018) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 13(7) 555

The purpose of this article – which can be found here – is to provide a comparative analysis of EU, US and Indian case law on reverse patent holdup in the context of standard essential patent licensing. The piece is structured as follows: The paper begins with a discussion of patent holdup and reverse holdup in general terms. Technological standards have become ubiquitous. Such standards foster interoperability, avoid inefficient rivalry between competing systems and facilitate competition in downstream product markets. It has been held that firms that commit their patents to a standard – and thereby own standard essential patents (SEPs) for the purposes of that standard – often abuse their dominant position by demanding excessive royalties or by seeking injunctive relief against infringers of their essential patents. Owning a SEP provides its holder with a certain amount of market power, because users of the standard must reach a licensing agreement with the patent holder. Theoretically, a SEP holder can…

David Bailey ‘The New Frontiers of Article 102 TFEU: antitrust imperialism or judicious intervention?’ (2018) Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 6(1) 25-53

This paper – which can be found here – addresses the way in which EU competition law cuts across and interferes with other legal regimes such as pharmaceutical regulations (Astra Zeneca and patent settlement cases), energy rules (Gazprom) and data protection (Facebook). This has led to a debate about whether EU competition law and policy should be able to trespass on turf that is properly subject to other areas of law, and whether it is appropriate for it to act as a “repair service” for other fields of economic law that lack sanctioning mechanisms. The article is structured as follows: The second section examines four situations in which Article 102 TFEU controversially overlapped with a different area of law. Competition law applies to unilateral business conduct whenever there is an act (or omission) of a dominant undertaking that distorts the competitive process or is directly exploitative of consumers. On the other hand, the application of competition law is usually precluded by…

Thomas Hoppner ‘A Duty to Treat Downstream Rivals Equally: (Merely) a Natural Remedy to Google’s Monopoly Leveraging Abuse’ (2017) European Competition and Regulatory Law Review (3)208

This  paper – which can be found here – reviews the European Commission’s decision in the Google case, and the remedy that the Commission imposed in that decision. It argues that this decision follows settled law regarding anti-competitive extensions of dominance from a primary market to a distinct, but related, secondary market. It also seeks to refute the argument that the decision created a novel rule that a dominant company may not favour its own services – instead, it is argued that this requirement is merely the remedy that the Commission imposed to bring Google’s infringement to an end. The paper is structured as follows: A first section provides an overview of the decision and some critical reactions to it. The Commission fined Google for having abused its market dominance as a search engine by promoting its comparison shopping service, Google Shopping, and demoting rival services. Describing the abuse, the EC explained that it: “objects to the fact that Google…