PublishedOctober 28, 2021

Widespread Support for IEEE 2015 Patent Policy

In 2015, the IEEE made changes to its Patent Policy for standard-essential patents (SEPs).  Among other things, that policy strongly disfavored seeking injunctive relief for SEPs because injunctive relief permits using the threat of enjoining an entire product to extract a royalty that covers more than the value contributed by the patent.  The policy also set forth three non-limiting factors to be used in determining a reasonable royalty rate—the value contributed by the SEP to the smallest salable compliant implementation (analogous to the smallest saleable patent practicing unit in US law), the value contributed by the SEP to that implementation in light of all other SEPs that also contribute value to that implementation, and comparable licenses.  These factors are not mandatory, only encouraged.

IEEE received criticism of this approach, primarily from patent licensing companies who were obtaining high license fees and were concerned that the changes would reduce their profit margin.  In contrast, the majority of standards participants were happy with these changes—after the policy change, contributions to IEEE standards reversed a declining trend and began to increase once again.

But, given the vocal criticism from licensors, the IEEE decided to request feedback on whether to reverse course and change the 2015 Patent Policy.

Comments to IEEE on the 2015 Policy

Much like U.S. comment processes, this was not a voting process—the raw numbers don’t control the outcome, but rather the information in the comments is used to educate the relevant IEEE personnel.  That said, looking at who took what position on the 2015 Policy is useful to understand what industry’s views on the topic are.

Taking that view, the vast majority of commentators—95 of them—were in favor of maintaining the 2015 Patent Policy.  Pro-2015 commentators also came from a wide variety of backgrounds, ranging from the automotive industry to cellular companies to hardware manufacturers to software companies, as well as a number of academics and public interest groups.  They also came from all around the world—alongside many American entities, there was representation from companies in the EU, Japan, South Korea, China, and India.

In contrast, only 17 entities supported changes to the 2015 Policy.  Those companies were primarily companies who focus on licensing their patents, or lawyers who work with those companies.  Huawei also supports changes—perhaps unsurprising, as Huawei has shifted to a patent licensing strategy in jurisdictions such as the United States as a result of national security-related bans on the sale of its hardware.  Further, the majority of commenters supporting changes to the IEEE patent policy come from outside of the United States; only 7 commenters out of the 17 represented American entities.

What’s Next?

Now that the comments have been submitted, it’s time for IEEE to review them and determine what path forward the organization should take.  But based on the content of these comments, and the relative balance, the IEEE should feel very comfortable that much of industry supports their existing patent policy and sees no reason to go back to in terrorem injunctions and completely amorphous valuation procedures.

Josh Landau

Patent Counsel, CCIA

Joshua Landau is the Patent Counsel at the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), where he represents and advises the association regarding patent issues.  Mr. Landau joined CCIA from WilmerHale in 2017, where he represented clients in patent litigation, counseling, and prosecution, including trials in both district courts and before the PTAB.

Prior to his time at WilmerHale, Mr. Landau was a Legal Fellow on Senator Al Franken’s Judiciary staff, focusing on privacy and technology issues.  Mr. Landau received his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center and his B.S.E.E. from the University of Michigan.  Before law school, he spent several years as an automotive engineer, during which time he co-invented technology leading to U.S. Patent No. 6,934,140.

Follow @PatentJosh on Twitter.

More Posts

Congress Wants to Revive Patents but May Strangle Innovation and Damage Health Care Access Instead

This post, written by Wayne Brough, initially appeared in the R Street’s Real Solutions Blog. Patent eligibility, or the fundamental question of what is patentable, is currently under congression...

CCIA Senior Counsel Joshua Landau Testifies To Congress

In case you missed it, I testified to the House Judiciary Committee's IP Subcommittee last week about whether the output of AIs should receive patent and/or copyright protection. The hearing is avail...

Tackling Patent Trolls In Foxboro

A new lawsuit in Massachusetts proves that even NFL teams are not safe from baseless accusations from patent trolls. While the New England Patriots are usually concerned with defending their home turf...

Subscribe to Patent Progress

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.