Trade Law Daily is a Warren News publication.
'Within Reach'

Carriers Support 5.9 GHz Waivers; Patent Issues Raised

Wireless carriers supported a December waiver request by proponents of cellular-vehicle-to-everything use of the 5.9 GHz band asking to be able to deploy now (see 2112140070). Most initial comments supported approval of that, and other subsequent waiver requests, though NCTA and a few other commenters had reservations (see 207290032). Other commenters raised patent concerns. Replies were due Monday in docket 19-138.

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 record shows that wireless can play a significant role in improving highway safety,” CTIA said: The “combination of C-V2X direct mode connections using the Upper 5.9 GHz Band and C-V2X network mode connections -- the latter relying on licensed spectrum over wireless provider networks -- will help deliver vehicle-to-everything connectivity that will drive innovation, make road travel safer, improve efficiency, and reduce environmental impacts.”

T-Mobile said it “has long advocated for productive use of the 5.9 GHz band.” Commenters ‘”widely agree that grant of the waiver request would achieve that goal by allowing the prompt introduction of C-V2X into vehicle fleets throughout the Nation without causing harmful interference,” the carrier said: “T-Mobile agrees with those comments and urges the Commission to grant the requested waiver as well as any similar requests.”

The record support for the C-V2X Joint Waiver Request is, essentially, unanimous to date,” said the American Traffic Safety Services Association: “Many of the most prominent transportation stakeholders and trade associations have filed in support of a waiver grant. Indeed, the automotive industry’s chief trade association, America’s intelligent transportation association, and the primary association for public state transportation authorities each have filed comments supporting a waiver grant.”

The waiver requests pending before the Commission illustrate that widespread C-V2X deployment is close within reach,” the 5G Automotive Association said: “In recent weeks, additional states, cities, and innovators have stepped forward seeking their own waivers. These stakeholders outline even more plans for the widescale deployment of C-V2X applications that are delayed or at risk of delay due to the legacy rules.”

Intellectual Property Questions

Qualcomm responded to comments from Continental Automotive Systems, which raised intellectual property objections. “The Commission has mandated component manufacturers such as Continental utilize a technology for which, as a practical matter, they are unable to obtain intellectual property licenses needed to remain fully in compliance with the U.S. patent laws,” Continental said.

Continental’s requests are legally infirm and based on allegations that lack any basis in fact,” Qualcomm said: “Continental is asking the FCC to improperly override court decisions -- including active court cases in which Continental is involved -- that have rejected relief similar to what Continental is seeking here.”

But the European Association of Automotive Manufacturers (CLEPA), the Computer and Communications Industry Association, ACT|The App Association and others seconded the concerns raised by Continental. “We agree with the well-founded concerns that patent rights for standardized technologies required under the Commission’s proposed regulation are not, as a practical matter, available to many industry participants,” the filing said. “Until the unavailability of patent licenses is addressed by the Commission, the Commission risks excluding or deterring many companies from the market,” they said.

The Commission has an opportunity to ensure a diverse and innovative marketplace for C-V2X technologies,” the CLEPA-led filing said: “We urge the Commission to carefully consider the need to ensure the availability of licenses to [standard essential patents] for all automotive industry participants as it evaluates deployment of C-V2X technologies.” High Tech Inventors Association, the Fair Standards Alliance, Cisco Systems, Juniper Networks, Lenovo, Motorola Mobility, Sierra Wireless and u-blox supported the filing.

Before issuing waivers, the FCC should ensure the underlying standard essential patents for all C-V2X technologies “are subject to predictable and fair licensing terms, and that SEP holders cannot refuse to license their patents to particular companies or market segments,” Continental said in reply comments: “Such fair licensing practices will prevent any licensor from artificially restricting the marketplace for undue purposes.”

IP Europe disagreed with Continental. “Continental is misleading the Commission when it suggests that licenses are needed for all suppliers,” the coalition said. The company has been a leading supplier of telecommunication control units, which provide cellular connectivity in automobiles, IP Europe said. “Continental has not been subject to patent infringement suits for the infringement of cellular SEPs,” the group said: “This is because cellular SEP licensing in the automobile industry takes place at the automobile level and Continental has had effective access to the technology. Thus, Continental’s argument that all levels of a supply chain need a license is misleading. It needs access to the technology, and it has that.”

Ericsson urged rejection of the patent claims, saying addressing them would slow deployment of C-V2X. “Even if this were the appropriate venue for such a discussion, the FCC lacks the statutory authority to dictate the terms of C-V2X patent licenses,” Ericsson said: “The FCC may only promulgate regulations pursuant to its statutory authority, and there is nothing in its organic statute to impose regulations on patent licensing.”