New IEEE Policy Marginal, But Should Increase Telecom Confidence, Official Says
Expect marginal changes in IEEE standards-setting policy, rendering the process more transparent but having no profound impact on how patents are assessed in creating standards, the body’s Standards Assn. Patent Committee Chmn. David Law told Communications Daily. Law hopes the new policies boost telecom/IT industry confidence in its investment decisions, he said. The DoJ won’t oppose the proposed changes, which IEEE is legally bound as a standards- setting body to submit before implementing, Justice said Mon., adding that the changes “may enable IEEE to make better informed decisions… that will benefit consumers.”
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The policy changes aim to heighten the transparency of patent holders’ intentions to impose royalties or not, and whether they plan to enforce certain patents, in the course of standard setting. The change encompasses 4 areas: (1) It encourages optional earlier disclosure of royalty rates and other terms. Previously member companies weren’t permitted to disclose maximum royalty rates or provide sample terms and conditions for fear of violating DoJ and FTC antitrust rules. Law said this change lets vendors include the relative cost of intellectual property in cost-benefit analyses. (2) It makes a patent holder’s assurance of licensing intention -- the existence and size of royalties -- irrevocable once submitted to the IEEE. Before, such assurances were binding only after a standard was published; this moves the binding date further up in the drafting process. (3) It binds all patent holder affiliates unless it specifically names those it wishes to exempt. (4) It requires participating members to name patent holders it feels are “potentially essential to the standard, based on personal knowledge.” IEEE sought DoJ approval as a final precaution, it said, “even though the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission have made clear in the past 2 years [such policies] are permissible.”
Standards bodies effectively are working toward more efficient practices that improve the mechanism’s overall transparency, said Thomas Barnett, DoJ asst. attorney gen.- Antitrust Div. Barnett was responding to IEEE’s request letter, submitted to Barnett by firm Dorsay & Whitney. This was the 2nd such approval granted by DoJ on the general topic of what changes in patent information policy standards bodies may make. In Oct. the Dept. said it wouldn’t oppose similar changes proposed by the VMEbus International Trade Assn. (VITA), which had drafted its proposes over the previous year.
The changes are mostly “clarifications, more than a major shift” from any fundamental principles on patent disclosure in standard setting, Law said, expressing hope that the change “will give [telecom/IT] more confidence in the letters of assurance and the future durability of the patents” held by multi-vendor manufacturers. Telecom has seen bitter battles over royalty rates and RAND-style licensing in recent years, notably feuds embroiling Qualcomm, Broadcom and Nokia, among others.