Peter Menell  ‘Economic Analysis of Network Effects and Intellectual Property’ in Ben Depoorter & Peter S. Menell (eds.), Research Handbook on the Economics of Intellectual Property Law: Vol I. Theory (2018)

This piece – which can be found here – is a rather long , but very comprehensive book chapter that surveys and integrates the economic, business strategy and legal literatures on IP, competition and network effects. It is structured as follows: Part I introduces network effects. I have done this to death in the past, so I’m not going to repeat it here. Suffice it to say that the author looks mainly at demand side network effects, and what its implications are for IP and competition policy: ‘In a static economic model (i.e., one without innovation), consumers benefit from robust competition within product standards. Open access to product standards encourages realization of network externalities. Although bandwagon effects can enhance consumer welfare in a static context, they can also make it more difficult for developers of improved platforms to enter the market. Consumers and suppliers of complementary products can face significant switching costs in migrating from one platform to another.’ Like…

Robert D. Anderson and Bill Kovacic ‘The application of competition policy vis-à-vis intellectual property rights: The evolution of thought underlying policy change’

This paper was written at the behest of the WTO, and can be found here. It examines the evolution of national competition policies and enforcement approaches vis-à-vis intellectual property rights (IPRs) in major jurisdictions over the past decades. I think it is particularly useful because it provides an integrated analysis of some of the most important developments at the intersection between competition and IP. A first section describes how the application of competition law in IP has been characterised over the last decades by the replacement of form-based approaches for case-by-case analyses of the effects of IP-related practices.  Furthermore, following a period in which competition authorities largely deferred to intellectual property offices with respect to issues concerning the scope and legitimacy of patents and other IPRs, leading agencies have devoted significant resources to advocacy efforts aimed at ensuring the integrity of patent regimes and avoiding the issuance/recognition of ill-founded rights that potentially weaken competition or impede follow-on innovation without serving valid…

Pat Treacy,  Matthew Hunt ‘Litigating a ‘FRAND’ patent licence: the Unwired Planet v Huawei judgment’(2018) Journal of International Property Law and Practice 13(2) 124

This is a paper – which can be found here – on the the Unwired Planet v Huawei judgment reviewed in a post of 28 April 2017. You may remember that this is primarily an IP law decision. It is nonetheless relevant to us because it is the first decision I’ve seen where an (English) court determined a FRAND rate, and because it dealt with a number of competition law issues which were relevant for such determination. It is also relevant – and topical – because the court imposed a (quasi-)worldwide license, which brings to mind the lively discussion we had at the OECD in December on extra-jurisdictional remedies following Korea’s decision to impose a global FRAND license on Qualcomm. The paper begins by summarising the context in which SEP litigation tends to arise, before describing the specific factual background of this case. In March 2014, Unwired Planet (UP) sued Huawei, Samsung and Google in the English Patents Court alleging infringement of…

Makan Delrahim, Assistant Att’y Gen., Antitrust Div., Dep’t of Justice, Remarks at the USC Gould School of Law’s Center for Transnational Law and Business Conference (Nov. 10, 2017)

This is a speech by US Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim regarding the appropriate approach to standard-setting organisations (SSOs) (and FRAND). As you may or may not know, he is a registered patent lawyer—the first head of the Antitrust Division to be so, so it is unsurprising that he has strong views on the topic. He seems to favour letting IP law run its course unimpeded (or, as he puts it: “Antitrust enforcers should . . . strive to eliminate as much as possible the unnecessary uncertainties for innovators and creators in their ability to exploit their intellectual property rights, as those uncertainties can also reduce the incentives for innovation.”), and only have antitrust intervene exceptionally (‘In case anyone is inclined to misunderstand my comments, let me clearly state that there is an important role for antitrust scrutiny in the standard setting context.’) As he colourfully puts it: ‘Once upon a time, and in their best mode, [SSOs]…

Vincent Angwenyi ‘Hold-up, Hold-out and F/RAND: The quest for balance’ (2017) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 12 (12) 1012

This paper – which can be found here –  provides a good (and straightforward) overview of the various sides of the debate on how to deal with the standardisation of intellectual property rights, standard essential patents (SEPs) and their licensing. It covers a bit of the same ground as the paper just reviewed in the post below, but in a more detailed fashion. The relevance and recent prominence of SEPs derives from the fact that end-products in a number of economic sectors now require the incorporation of numerous patented technologies (resulting in a so-called multi-component product). The production of multi-component products requires manufacturers to manage patent thickets (i.e. networks of overlapping IP rights owned by multiple patent holders) and to obtain licences from multiple rights holders. The alleged patent thicket problem is linked to the hold-up problem because the threat of an injunction by a right holder against a patent implementer who has already invested heavily in the manufacture of…

Herbert Hovenkamp ‘Antitrust and Information Technologies’ 2017 Fla. L. Rev. 68 419

This is a polished version of a lecture given by Hovenkamp last year, and it can be found here.  As the name indicates it provides an overview of “the relationship between competition policy and the technologies of information.” A first section looks at the relationship between digital technology and market power. In particular, digital technology affects the way firms exercise market power and also creates serious measurement difficulties. A pervasive problem in analysing power in digital markets is that sellers typically have a very high ratio of fixed to variable costs. This entails that prices must be considerably above short-run marginal cost to be profitable. As a result of this, many traditional measures of market power produce unacceptable false positives. These measures include the Lerner Index and other tools derived from it, but are not limited to them: “None of the antitrust tools for assessing power is particularly sensitive to the presence of fixed costs”. He thus concludes that antitrust…

Alexander Galetovic & Stephen Haber ‘The Fallacies of Patent Hold Up Theory’ (2017) Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 13(1) 1

This paper – which can be found here – criticises the patent hold-up theory, which underpins most antitrust concerns regarding SEPs. The first section describes patent hold-up theory, which is said to: “consist of five nested claims. First, that patent owners can systematically overcharge manufacturers for licenses to their patents through the economic mechanism of holdup—the opportunistic appropriation of a downstream firm’s quasi rents (revenues in excess of short-run costs). Second, that when there are multiple patent holders, each practicing holdup on a downstream firm, cumulative patent royalty rates become astronomically high—a phenomenon patent-holdup theorists termed “royalty stacking. Third, that the holdup problem is exacerbated when patented technologies are included in the industry standards necessary to make IT products interoperable and compatible. Fourth, that patent holdup, royalty stacking, and the inclusion of patented technologies in industry  standards are strangling innovation, most particularly in SEP-intensive IT products. Fifth, that the government must intervene to solve this problem; the market, left on…

Richard A. Epstein and Kayvan B. Noroozi ‘Why Incentives for “Patent Holdout” Threaten to Dismantle FRAND, and Why It Matters’ IP² Working Paper No. 17006

This paper – which can be found here – argues that existing regulatory and judicial activity has unduly protected implementers (i.e. potential licensees) against SEP holders. In particular, the authors: “stress that implementers owe a significant duty to negotiate FRAND licenses in good faith, which courts have largely overlooked and underenforced. We demonstrate that implementers’ good faith obligations are a critical component of basic FRAND architecture that is strictly necessary to the development of innovation-driven standards. (…) [FRAND enables] the standards development effort to yield commercial benefits that would not exist absent innovators’ voluntary participation. We show both theoretically and empirically that courts’ failure to appreciate these aspects of the FRAND bargain, combined with their over-reliance on liability rules, i.e., damages over injunctions, incentivizes the very patent holdout problem FRAND was intended to avoid. That outcome, in turn, has motivated innovators to reduce their participation in FRAND bargains, threatening to unravel a massive innovation-commercialization marketplace, and its innumerable positive externalities to…

Koren W. Wong-Ervin, Evan Hicks, and Ariel Slonim ‘Tying and Bundling Involving Standard-Essential Patents’ (2017) George Mason Law Review 24 1091

This paper – which can be found here –  slooks at whether it is “unfair” (and therefore unlawful) for a SEP holder to license its patents, including both SEPs and non-SEPs, on a portfolio basis. The basic argument is that “SEP and non-SEP portfolio theories of harm” advanced thus far are not economically sound (this is unsurprising, given that the very first sentence of the article is: “Competition agencies around the world have taken the unwarranted position that antitrust enforcement involving standard-essential patents (SEPs) upon which a patent holder has made an assurance to license on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms should be subject to special rules or unique presumptions and burdens of proof” (emphasis is mine)). Instead, for these portfolios to infringe competition law there: “would have to be an exclusionary effect on other sellers because bundling thwarts buyers’ desire to purchase substitutes for one or more of the goods in the bundle from those other sellers to an…

David Teece and Edward Sherry ‘On Patent “Monopolies”: An Economic Re-Appraisal’ Antitrust Chronicle, Spring 2017

This paper – which you can find here – provides a short critical introduction to the intersection between IP and antitrust laws. It begins by pointing out the obvious:  in exchange for public disclosure, the patent system gives a successful patent applicant the right to exclude others from using the patented technology without her/his permission  for a period of time. The first instinct is to consider that this exclusivity amounts to a legal monopoly, which can make antitrust antennas start to tingle. However, it is now a truism that having an IP right does not mean one also has market power. Nonetheless, in the US a number of (older) decisions  refer to “patent monopolies.” This piece ask whether this “patent monopoly” language is useful, misleading, or something in between. Without surprise, the authors seek to argue that it is exceedingly misleading: simplistic assertions that patent rights constitute “monopolies” are not particularly informative or helpful. The argument starts by looking at the…