DOCSLIB.ORG

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Case 2:15-cv-02050 Document 1 Filed 03/19/15 Page 1 of 20 Page ID #:1 1 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP JEFFREY M. OLSON (SBN 104074) 2 [email protected] THEODORE W. CHANDLER (SBN 219456) 3 [email protected] CLARENCE A. ROWLAND (SBN 285409) 4 [email protected] 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 5 Los Angeles, California 90013 Telephone: (213) 896-6000 6 Facsimile: (213) 896-6600 7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs PANASONIC CORPORATION, 8 SANYO ELECTRIC CO., LTD., WARNER BROS. HOME ENTERTAINMENT INC. and 9 MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORPORATION 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 PANASONIC CORPORATION, ) Case No. SANYO ELECTRIC CO., LTD., ) 14 WARNER BROS. HOME ) ENTERTAINMENT INC. and ) COMPLAINT FOR PATENT 15 MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC ) INFRINGEMENT AND JURY CORPORATION, ) DEMAND 16 ) Plaintiffs, ) 17 ) v. ) 18 ) ENCORE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.; ) 19 DVD FACTORY, INC.; DAVENPORT ) INTERNATIONAL CORP.; M. ) 20 MORRIS, INC., individually and doing ) business as BARRACUDA ) 21 ENTERTAINMENT, CABALLERO ) INTERNATIONAL, CABALLERO ) 22 VIDEO, and CABALLERO ) INTERNATIONAL VIDEO, INC.; ) 23 RODAX DISTRIBUTORS, INC.; 6480 ) CORPORATION; MAX MORRIS ) 24 ENTERPRISES, LLC; DANIEL ) MAMANE; GEROLD POOL and ) 25 TOMER YOFFE, ) ) 26 Defendants. ) ) 27 28 206151507v.1 Case 2:15-cv-02050 Document 1 Filed 03/19/15 Page 2 of 20 Page ID #:2 1 Plaintiffs Panasonic Corporation (formerly known as Matsushita Electric 2 Industrial Co., Ltd.) (“Panasonic”), SANYO Electric Co., Ltd. (“SANYO”), Warner 3 Bros. Home Entertainment Inc. (“Warner Bros.”) and Mitsubishi Electric 4 Corporation (alternatively named Mitsubishi Denki Kabushiki Kaisha) 5 (“Mitsubishi”), by their undersigned attorneys, for their complaint against 6 Defendants Encore Media Services, Inc. (“Encore”); DVD Factory, Inc. (“DVD 7 Factory”); Davenport International Corp. (“Davenport”); M. Morris, Inc., 8 individually and doing business as Barracuda Entertainment, Caballero International, 9 Caballero Video, and Caballero International Video, Inc. (“MMI”); Rodax 10 Distributors, Inc. (“Rodax”); 6480 Corporation (“6480 Corp.”); Max Morris 11 Enterprises, LLC (“MME”); Daniel Mamane (“Mamane”); Gerold Pool (“Pool”) and 12 Tomer Yoffe (“Yoffe”) (collectively hereinafter “Defendants”) allege as follows: 13 PARTIES 14 1. Plaintiff Panasonic is a Japanese corporation, having its principal place 15 of business in Osaka, Japan. Panasonic owns patents that are the subject of this 16 complaint. 17 2. Plaintiff SANYO is a Japanese corporation, having its principal place of 18 business in Osaka, Japan. SANYO owns patents that are the subject of this 19 complaint. 20 3. Plaintiff Warner Bros. is a Delaware corporation, having its principal 21 place of business in Burbank, California. Warner Bros. owns patents that are the 22 subject of this complaint. 23 4. Plaintiff Mitsubishi is a Japanese corporation, having its principal place 24 of business in Tokyo, Japan. Mitsubishi owns patents that are the subject of this 25 complaint. 26 5. Defendant Encore, upon information and belief, is a California 27 corporation, incorporated on January 23, 2012, with a principal place of business at 28 24853 Avenue Rockefeller, Valencia, California 91355. 206151507v.1 2 Case 2:15-cv-02050 Document 1 Filed 03/19/15 Page 3 of 20 Page ID #:3 1 6. Defendant DVD Factory, upon information and belief, is a California 2 corporation, incorporated on January 4, 2011, with a principal place of business at 3 7230 Coldwater Canyon Avenue, North Hollywood, California 91605. 4 7. Defendant Davenport, upon information and belief, is a New York 5 corporation, incorporated on May 20, 1993, with a principal place of business at 6 7230 Coldwater Canyon Avenue, North Hollywood, California 91605. 7 8. Defendant MMI, upon information and belief, is a California 8 corporation, incorporated on December 24, 2002, with a principal place of business 9 at 7230 Coldwater Canyon Avenue, North Hollywood, California 91605. 10 9. On information and belief, Defendant MMI filed in Los Angeles 11 County a Fictitious Business Name Statement for Caballero Video on March 22, 12 2012, and filed in Los Angeles County a Fictitious Business Name Statement for 13 Barracuda Entertainment and for Caballero International on June 11, 2014, and also 14 has used and/or is using the fictitious business name Caballero International Video, 15 Inc. 16 10. Defendant Rodax, upon information and belief, is a California 17 corporation, incorporated on October 17, 1991, with a principal place of business at 18 7230 Coldwater Canyon Avenue, North Hollywood, California 91605. 19 11. Defendant 6480 Corp., upon information and belief, is a California 20 corporation, incorporated on September 4, 1992, with a principal place of business at 21 7230 Coldwater Canyon Avenue, North Hollywood, California 91605. 22 12. Defendant MME, upon information and belief, is a California domestic 23 LLC, formed on December 9, 2002, with a principal place of business at 7230 24 Coldwater Canyon Avenue, North Hollywood, California 91605. 25 13. Upon information and belief, Defendant Mamane, also variously known 26 as Danny Mann and Max Morris, is the President of Defendants DVD Factory and 27 6480 Corp., and controls the day-to-day operations of each. 28 206151507v.1 3 Case 2:15-cv-02050 Document 1 Filed 03/19/15 Page 4 of 20 Page ID #:4 1 14. Upon information and belief, Defendant Pool is the President of 2 Defendant Encore, and controls its day-to-day operations. In addition, upon 3 information and belief, Defendant Poole has held himself out as a “Records 4 Custodian” for some or all of the DVDs that are the subject of this complaint, 5 including identifying the address of 7230 Coldwater Canyon Avenue, North 6 Hollywood, California 91605 as the location of the records. 7 15. Upon information and belief, Defendant Yoffe is the President of 8 Defendants Davenport, MMI and Rodax, and controls the day-to-day operations of 9 each. 10 16. Defendants Encore, DVD Factory, Davenport, MMI, Rodax, 6480 11 Corp. and MME are the agents, subsidiaries and/or alter egos, and are under the 12 control of Mamane, Pool and/or Yoffe and of each other. 13 17. On information and belief, individually and/or collectively, Defendants 14 Encore, DVD Factory, Davenport, MMI, Rodax, 6480 Corp., MME, Mamane, Pool 15 and/or Yoffe direct and control all steps in the production, manufacture, marketing, 16 distribution and first sale of some or all of the DVDs that are subject of this 17 complaint, presenting common factual and legal questions as to each and every 18 Defendant that are best resolved in the same legal proceeding, and as further 19 described hereinafter. 20 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 21 18. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent 22 Laws of the United States, United States Code, Title 35, § 1, et seq. 23 19. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action 24 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 25 20. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c), 26 and (d), and 1400(b) because Defendants reside in this district, have committed acts 27 of direct and indirect infringement in this District, have a regular and established 28 place of business in this District, and have transacted business in this District, 206151507v.1 4 Case 2:15-cv-02050 Document 1 Filed 03/19/15 Page 5 of 20 Page ID #:5 1 including making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or having sold DVDs, which 2 infringe the patents-in-suit. 3 21. Personal jurisdiction exists generally over each of the Defendants 4 because each Defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum as a result 5 of their residences and because of business conducted within this State and District. 6 Personal jurisdiction also exists specifically over each of the Defendants because 7 each, directly or through affiliates, subsidiaries or intermediaries, transacts business 8 in this District including making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or having sold 9 DVDs within this State and District, which infringe the patents-in-suit. 10 PATENTS-IN-SUIT 11 22. United States Patent No. 5,463,565, entitled “Data Block Format For 12 Software Carrier And Player Therefor” (hereinafter, “the ‘ 565 patent”) was duly 13 and legally issued on October 31, 1995. A copy of the ‘565 patent is attached hereto 14 as Exhibit 1. 15 23. United States Patent No. 5,790,487, entitled “Optical Information 16 Recording Medium, Optical Information Recording Method, And Optical 17 Information Reproducing Apparatus Utilizing The Same” (hereinafter, “the ‘ 487 18 patent”) was duly and legally issued on August 4, 1998. A copy of the ‘487 patent 19 is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 20 24. United States Patent No. 5,838,657, entitled “High Density Optical 21 Disc And Optical Disc Player” (hereinafter, “the ‘ 657 patent”) was duly and 22 legally issued on November 17, 1998. A copy of the ‘657 patent is attached hereto 23 as Exhibit 3. 24 25. United States Patent No. 5,881,032, entitled “Optical Disk, And Optical 25 Disk Reproduction Method And Apparatus Implementing A Mathematical 26 Complementary Relationship For Plural Layers” (hereinafter, “the ’032 patent”) 27 was duly and legally issued on March 9, 1999. A copy of the ‘032 patent is 28 attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 206151507v.1 5 Case 2:15-cv-02050 Document 1 Filed 03/19/15 Page 6 of 20 Page ID #:6 1 26. United States Patent No. 5,896,367, entitled “High Density Optical 2 Disc And Optical Disc Player” (hereinafter, “the ‘ 367 patent”) was duly and 3 legally issued on April 20, 1999. A copy of the ‘367 patent is attached hereto as 4 Exhibit 5. 5 27. United States Patent No. 6,526,221, entitled “Data Structure 6 Representing Both Program And Command Data” (hereinafter, “the ‘ 221 patent”) 7 was duly and legally issued on February 25, 2003.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Managing Intellectual Property Using Patent Pools: LESSONS from THREE GENERATIONS of POOLS in the OPTICAL DISC INDUSTRY
    Managing Intellectual Property Using Patent Pools: LESSONS FROM THREE GENERATIONS OF POOLS IN THE OPTICAL DISC INDUSTRY Simon den Uijl Rudi Bekkers Henk J. de Vries For modern technologies, access to intellectual property rights (IPR) is complex because it is fragmented among many owners. The required licensing agreements invoke considerable transaction costs and royalty stacking. Often, it is in the interest of the technology sponsor to ease access to the required IPR. Patent pools have proven useful to achieve this goal. This article examines the experiences with three generations of patent pools in the optical disc industry. Technology platforms are becoming increasingly complex, which leads to a fragmentation of IPR among many pools and causes new issues. A novel “pool-of-pools” can address these. (Keywords: Patents, Intellectual Property, Licensing, Standardization, Technological Innovation, New Product Management, Disruptive Technology) he development of consumer electronics, telecommunications, com- puters, and related high-tech industries is defined by a myriad of tech- nologies. Increasingly, these technologies involve numerous blocking patents owned by multiple patent owners. A recent example is the competitionT between three prominent smartphone operating systems: iOS, Android, and Windows Mobile.1 The companies that developed these operating systems use patents to make the other platforms more expensive and spread uncertainty among app developers. When a technological field develops through the contributions of many entities, negotiating the number of requisite patent licenses may become inefficient and too costly for users. To solve this issue, which is inevitable for any area where many parties invest in research and development, companies increasingly employ a patent pool licensing model.
    [Show full text]
  • How Valuable Is Your Patent, Really?
    1 2 3 4 • These are factors that go beyond the usual realm of a patent prosecution counsel • broad claims • well supported by spec • clean prosecution history • Timely issuance • Can the patent stand alone as an asset? à How much is the patent worth in the market place? 5 • Life after AIA • Presumption of validity at the district court level is no longer there • Parallel proceedings at PTAB • High rate of IPR institution and claim cancellation (especially at the outset of AIA) • While the application of AIA rules and new processes are being hashed out, presumption of validity is definitely gone. • Case law is always evolving – Pendulum still swinging • Gottschalk v. Benson • Parker v. Flook • Diamond v. Diehr • State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group • In re Bilski • Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International • DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com (one patent held as patentable! • Enfish v. Microsoft • Certain PTAB decisions being designated precedential 6 http://www.ncsl.org/research/financial-services-and-commerce/2016-patent-troll- legislation.aspx http://www.law360.com/articles/836578/the-post-aia-battleground-for-patent- challenges http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=3aad1da2- 08a9-4f14-a147-611b1e39ff75 ITC: Availability of Cease and Desist orders and Limited or General Exclusion Orders; speedy proceedings “anti-patent troll” — i.e., entities that have made a business out of directly challenging patents via IPR for financial gain (“...IPR process is being misused by hedge fund companies whose motive isn't
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Pools and Innovation in the Optical Disk Drive Industry
    A Tale of Two Standards: Patent Pools and Innovation in the Optical Disk Drive Industry Preliminary Draft Comments Only Please Kenneth Flamm University of Texas at Austin at Austin [email protected] December 2011 First Revision, January 2012 Patent pools—arrangements to issue single common licenses to a portfolio of patents owned by multiple distinct owners—became increasingly common in high tech industry in the final decade of the last century.1 The patent system enabling these pools sits at the intersection of two sometimes conflicting objectives of economic policy. On the one hand, societies typically encourage innovation by granting temporary monopolies (i.e., patents) on new technologies, as a dynamic incentive to induce investment in R&D, the outcome of which would otherwise be difficult to appropriate by an inventor. On the other hand, once technology has been created, it is statically optimal to make it available as widely as possible at its marginal cost of transfer, which is often close to zero, a price that would offer no return to an inventor and discourage new investment in innovation. There is a fundamental tension between these two divergent goals. Patent pools further complicate this tradeoff: while antitrust policy is generally focused on discouraging coordination among producers intended to improve the exercise of their collective monopoly power, patent pools explicitly encourage such coordinated action. Conceptual Issues With complex technological systems, which frequently are associated with formal or informal industry standards, it is common for patents owned by different firms to cover distinct elements used in building the high tech system or technology platform.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Patent Pools on Patenting and Innovation-Evidence
    The Effect of Patent Pools on Patenting and Innovation - Evidence from Contemporary Technology Standards Justus Baron Northwestern University Searle Center on Law, Regulation and Economic Growth Tim Pohlmann Mines ParisTech Cerna - Center for Industrial Economics February 2, 2015 Abstract We analyze the effect of patent pools on the incentives to file patents related to a comprehensive sample of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) stan- dards. We measure a positive effect of the announcement of a pool on the filing rates for standard-related patents. We identify an exogenous policy change between 1997 and 1999, when antitrust authorities adopted a more permissive stance towards pooling of patents. An important number of pools were created in the wake or in response to this policy change. Studying these pools, we find a significant increase in patenting rates after pool announcement. This increase in patenting is primarily attributable to future members of the pool, as confirmed by Instrumental Variable regressions using firm-level characteristics associated with a higher likelihood of joining a patent pool. Pool creations taking place in later years could be more easily anticipated. Indeed, we find that the announcements of later pools is preceded by unusually high levels of patenting. Furthermore, we show that pool announcements with a higher likelihood of successful pool creation are followed by a stronger increase in patenting. We find no significant effect of patent pool announcements on the number of citation-weighted patent files. JEL-Classification: L24, O34 Kewords: Patent Pools, Technology Standards, Patent Licensing, Innovation incen- tives 1 Introduction Complex Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), and in particular technology standards, are often protected by a large number of complementary patents.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Patent Pools Demonstrates Variety of Purposes and Management Structures
    Survey of Patent Pools Demonstrates Variety of Purposes and Management Structures KEI Research Note 2007:6 David Serafino1 Knowledge Ecology International 4 June 2007 Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Early pools associated with monopolies and cartels (1856-1919)..................................................... 3 Sewing Machine Combination – 1856 ............................................................................................ 3 National Harrow Company - 1890 .................................................................................................. 4 United Shoe Machinery Company - 1899....................................................................................... 5 Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC) - 1908 ......................................................................... 5 Association of Sanitary Enameled Ware Manufacturers (Standard Sanitary) - 1909.................. 6 Standard Oil Cracking Pool - 1911 ................................................................................................. 7 Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacturers (ALAM) - 1903 ......................................... 8 Davenport folding beds - 1916 ........................................................................................................ 9 Glass Container Association of America (Hartford-Empire) – 1919............................................ 9 National
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Pools and Aggregation
    SJ Quinney College of Law, University of Utah Utah Law Digital Commons Utah Law Faculty Scholarship Utah Law Scholarship 10-2020 Intellectual Property Pools and Aggregation Jorge L. Contreras Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.law.utah.edu/scholarship Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Contreras IP Licensing and Transactions Chapter 27 CHAPTER 27 – INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POOLS AND AGGREGATION Summary Contents A. Theories of IP Pooling: Efficiency and Enablement B. Antitrust Analysis of Patent Pools Standard Oil (Indiana) v. United States U.S. Dept. Justice & Fed. Trade Comm’n Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property C. Standards Patent Pools U.S. Dept. Justice MPEG-2 Business Review Letter D. Complementarity and Essentiality in Patent Pools U.S. Dept. Justice 3GPP Business Review Letter As we saw in Chapter 25, agreements among competitors that restrain trade can violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Such anticompetitive agreements can involve trademarks, copyrights, patents and other intellectual property rights. If they seek to fix prices, allocate markets or impose similar restraints on competition, such agreements are per se illegal; otherwise they are evaluated under the rule of reason, balancing their pro-competitive and anticompetitive effects. In this chapter, we will consider an important category of agreements among competitors – those in which intellectual property rights are combined or “pooled” for various purposes. The first documented patent pool in the U.S. was formed in 1856 by three leading manufacturers of sewing machines.1 Since then, IP pools have evolved and The crux of an IP pooling grown in complexity.
    [Show full text]
  • Links: 90, 93, 105, 113, 114, 115, 129 UNITED STATES DISTRICT
    Case 2:12-cv-03662-MRP-JC Document 132 Filed 07/17/13 Page 1 of 30 Page ID #:9047 Links: 90, 93, 105, 113, 114, 115, 129 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION JVC Kenwood Corporation, Case No. 2:12-CV-3662 MRP (JCx) Plaintiff, Order Granting Defendant Nero’s v. Motion for Partial Summary Arcsoft, Inc.; Nero, Inc., Judgment of Noninfringement and Granting Defendant Nero’s Defendants. Motions to Strike the Declarations of Tetsuro Fuse, James Chang, and Faramarz Azadegan I. Introduction Defendant Nero, Inc. (“Nero”) seeks partial summary judgment of noninfringement due to patent exhaustion and express release with respect to a subset of the patents-in-suit asserted by Plaintiff JVC Kenwood Corporation (“JVC”) in this patent infringement case. The patents-in-suit relate to recording and playback of optical discs conforming to standards specified as essential by either the DVD6C or the One-Blue licensing consortiums. In its motion, Nero 1 Case 2:12-cv-03662-MRP-JC Document 132 Filed 07/17/13 Page 2 of 30 Page ID #:9048 argues that JVC has failed to provide evidence of an unlicensed direct infringer and therefore cannot show indirect infringement. JVC opposes the motion. The Court heard oral argument on April 23, 2013. Having read and considered all of the briefs and arguments of the parties, the Court concludes that under the doctrines of patent exhaustion and express release, Nero’s software products do not infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,535,008 (“the ’008 Patent”); 6,141,491 (“the ’491 Patent”); 6,212,329 (“the ’329 Patent”); 6,490,404 (“the ’404 Patent”); 6,522,692 (“the ’692 Patent”); 6,768,711 (“the ’711 Patent”); 6,788,881 (“the ’881 Patent”); 7,023,790 (“the ’790 Patent”); and 7,102,970 (“the ’970 Patent”) (collectively, “the Patents”).
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Pools in China
    Co-published editorial Patent pools in China Samsung. This technology needs to be China was initially suspicious of licensed to third-party manufacturers, so patent pools, viewing them as a could not be effectively used unless the threat to national interests. However, group got together and jointly agreed on and there is now a growing appreciation deployed the technology. of the importance of joining pools Patent pools today and creating its own technologies, Patent pools enable diverse technology rather than resisting them owners to create a resource for their collective benefit. Patent pools enable many industries to function effectively; to operate By Nicholas Redfearn, Rouse Legal, in the simplest manner possible to reduce Hong Kong the costs of negotiating individual licences for each patent; to reduce the risks of trading Patent pools are consortia of patent owners in that arena; and to enable sensible that place patents into a pool and then, as a management of royalties. Often, patent pools group, cross-license them. The patents are licensed into separate corporate vehicles, normally relate to a particular technology such as Sisvel, which manages the patent (eg, RFID, Bluetooth or MPEG). This article pools for RFID and MPEG, among others. In explores their impact on and use in the PRC the case of DVD players, there are a myriad market in recent years. of different DVD patent pools controlling different technologies, depending on the Origins precise type of DVD technology in question. Patent pools originated for two reasons. One criticism of patent royalty Initially, they were a way to avoid competing structures (indeed, this applies to copyright technology owners suing each other too), is the difficulty of seeking licences for endlessly to seek to exclude each other from all necessary patents.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Pool Outsiders
    Maurer School of Law: Indiana University Digital Repository @ Maurer Law Articles by Maurer Faculty Faculty Scholarship 2018 Patent Pool Outsiders Michael Mattioli Indiana University Maurer School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Mattioli, Michael, "Patent Pool Outsiders" (2018). Articles by Maurer Faculty. 2676. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/2676 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by Maurer Faculty by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MATTIOLI_FINALFORMAT_06-24-18 (DO NOT DELETE) 6/24/2018 6:22 PM PATENT POOL OUTSIDERS Michael Mattioli† ABSTRACT Individuals who decline to join cooperative groups—outsiders—raise concerns in many areas of law and policy. From trade policy to climate agreements to class action procedures, the fundamental concern is the same: a single member of the group who drops out could weaken the remaining union. This Article analyzes the outsider problem as it affects patents. The outsider phenomenon has important bearing on patent and antitrust policy. By centralizing and simplifying complex patent licensing deals, patent pools conserve tremendous transaction costs. This allows for the widespread production and competitive sale of many useful technologies, particularly in the consumer electronics industry. Because these transaction-cost savings appear to outweigh the most common competition-related concerns raised by patent pools, antitrust authorities generally view these private groups favorably.
    [Show full text]
  • Collective Rights Organizations: a Guide to Benefits, Costs And
    125 8 Collective Rights Organizations: A Guide to Benefi ts, Costs and Antitrust Safeguards Richard J. Gilbert * A. Introduction page 125 B. The Legal Treatment of Collective Rights Organizations: A Convoluted History 127 C. The U.S. Antitrust Agencies’ Policy Statements on Patent Pools 129 D. Competition Risks from Collective Rights Organizations and Conditions that Mitigate these Risks 133 1. Substitutes and Complements 133 2. Limitation to Essential Patents 135 3. Independent Licensing as a Safeguard 137 4. Shielding Weak Patents 139 5. “Excessive” Royalties 141 6. Innovation 143 A. Introduction Collective rights organizations (CROs) include patent pools, copyright collectives and cross- licensing arrangements. These organizations may differ in important dimensions. Their members may offer licenses to non- participants or only license each other. One or more of the participating rights- holders or a third party may administrate the CRO’s licensing program. Licensing terms may include royalties or be royalty free. Licenses may be exclusive or non- exclusive or include restrictions such as exclusivity and limitations on fi elds of use. The com- mon thread is that separate fi rms or rights- holders cooperate to price and establish the terms of use for their intellectual property. Patent pools and copyright collectives offer technology users one- stop shopping for the rights that the organizations manage and provide rights- holders with a mechanism to enforce their rights and collect royalties. Cross- licensing arrangements are limited to the parties to the cross- license and do not make licenses available to third parties. Nonetheless, they can provide ben- efi ts by resolving confl icting patent claims and by lowering royalty burdens when parties agree * I am grateful for helpful comments from Robert Merges, Carl Shapiro and Jean Tirole, and to Michael Eixenberger and Alison Gilbert for editorial assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • PATENT POOL OUTSIDERS Michael Mattioli†
    PATENT POOL OUTSIDERS Michael Mattioli† ABSTRACT Individuals who decline to join cooperative groups—outsiders—raise concerns in many areas of law and policy. From trade policy to climate agreements to class action procedures, the fundamental concern is the same: a single member of the group who drops out could weaken the remaining union. This Article analyzes the outsider problem as it affects patents. The outsider phenomenon has important bearing on patent and antitrust policy. By centralizing and simplifying complex patent licensing deals, patent pools conserve tremendous transaction costs. This allows for the widespread production and competitive sale of many useful technologies, particularly in the consumer electronics industry. Because these transaction-cost savings appear to outweigh the most common competition-related concerns raised by patent pools, antitrust authorities generally view these private groups favorably. Others are less sanguine. Most patent pools are incomplete: for the technologies they cover, not all relevant patents are included. The reason for this is understandable. Patent holders sometimes believe they can negotiate for higher royalties by declining to join an existing pool. Antitrust regulators are aware of this behavior but do not worry much about it. A growing number of economists and legal scholars believe, however, that this outsider behavior may impose higher costs on pool licensees, detracting from the central benefit that patent pools offer—transaction cost savings. These commentators urge antitrust regulators to regard patent pools with greater caution and skepticism. These calls for caution, however, are based mostly on theories about how patent pools should work, rather than on empirical studies. Remarkably, little research has been done to shed light on the actual impact of patent pool outsiders.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Dallas Division
    Case 3:14-cv-01257-P Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 1 of 23 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORPORATION, ) PANASONIC CORPORATION, SANYO ) ELECTRIC CO., LTD. and WARNER ) Case No. BROS. HOME ENTERTAINMENT INC., ) ) COMPLAINT FOR PATENT Plaintiffs, ) INFRINGEMENT; JURY TRIAL ) DEMANDED v. ) ) WORLD MEDIA GROUP, INC. and ) CRYSTAL CLEAR MEDIA GROUP, LLC., ) ) Defendants. ) COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiffs Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (alternatively named Mitsubishi Denki Kabushiki Kaisha) (“Mitsubishi”), Panasonic Corporation (formerly known as Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.) (“Panasonic”), SANYO Electric Co., Ltd. (“SANYO”) and Warner Bros. Home Entertainment Inc. (“Warner Bros.”), by their undersigned attorneys, for their complaint against Defendants World Media Group, Inc. (“WMG”) and Crystal Clear Media Group, LLC. (“CCMG”) (collectively hereinafter “Defendants”) allege as follows: 1 Case 3:14-cv-01257-P Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 2 of 23 PageID 2 PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Mitsubishi is a Japanese corporation, having its principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan. Mitsubishi owns patents that are the subject of this complaint. 2. Plaintiff Panasonic is a Japanese corporation, having its principal place of business in Osaka, Japan. Panasonic owns patents that are the subject of this complaint. 3. Plaintiff SANYO is a Japanese corporation, having its principal place of business in Osaka, Japan. SANYO owns patents that are the subject of this complaint. 4. Plaintiff Warner Bros. is a Delaware corporation, having its principal place of business in Burbank, California. Warner Bros. owns patents that are the subject of this complaint.
    [Show full text]