A study of IPR policies and practices of a representative group of Standards Setting Organizations worldwide Prepared by Rudi Bekkers* and Andrew Updegrove† Commissioned by the US National Academies of Science, Board of Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP), Project on Intellectual Property Management in standard- setting processes 17 September 2012 * School of Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands; Dialogic innovatie & interactie, Netherlands † Gesmer Updegrove LLP, Boston, United States Table of contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3 1.1 Standards setting organizations and intellectual property ................................................. 3 1.2 Charter of the National Academies of Science ................................................................. 5 1.3 Selection of the studied SSOs ........................................................................................... 5 1.4 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 7 1.5 This report is not an assessment of effectiveness or impact .............................................. 8 1.6 A normative statement on including IPRs in standards .................................................... 9 1.7 Nomenclature .................................................................................................................. 11 1.8 What’s in a word? ............................................................................................................ 12 1.9 Structure of this report ..................................................................................................... 13 1.10 Disclaimer ....................................................................................................................... 13 2 Introduction to the SSOs ..................................................................................................... 15 2.1 ISO, IEC and ITU ............................................................................................................ 15 2.2 IEEE ................................................................................................................................ 16 2.3 ETSI ................................................................................................................................. 17 2.4 ANSI ................................................................................................................................ 17 2.5 IETF ................................................................................................................................. 18 2.6 OASIS ............................................................................................................................. 19 2.7 VITA ............................................................................................................................... 20 2.8 W3C ................................................................................................................................. 20 2.9 HDMI Forum ................................................................................................................... 21 2.10 NFC Forum ...................................................................................................................... 22 2.11 Overview of the studied organizations ............................................................................ 22 3 Policy objectives and organizational embedding .............................................................. 24 3.1 Policy objectives .............................................................................................................. 24 3.2 How members/participants are bound by IPR rules ........................................................ 26 3.3 Dealing with affiliates ..................................................................................................... 30 3.4 IPR policies and third parties .......................................................................................... 32 3.5 Reflection on binding measures ...................................................................................... 33 4 Defining essential IPRs ........................................................................................................ 34 4.1 The definition of essential intellectual property rights .................................................... 35 4.2 Reflection on the definition of essential IPR ................................................................... 47 1 5 Disclosure of essential IPR .................................................................................................. 48 5.1 General disclosure procedure .......................................................................................... 50 5.2 Disclosure in relation to organizations and individuals’ knowledge .............................. 54 5.3 Timing of patent disclosure ............................................................................................. 58 5.4 Information to be provided in disclosures ....................................................................... 60 5.5 Whether content of technical meetings is public or not .................................................. 67 5.6 Reflection on disclosure: a dual process ......................................................................... 68 6 Licensing commitments ....................................................................................................... 71 6.1 General commitment procedure ...................................................................................... 71 6.2 Specified and sought licensing modes or covenants ....................................................... 88 6.3 Transfer of patents encumbered with licensing obligations ............................................ 92 6.4 Ex-ante disclosure of most restrictive licensing fees ...................................................... 94 6.5 Link to patent pools ......................................................................................................... 97 6.6 Reflection on licensing commitments ............................................................................. 98 7 Conclusions and reflection ................................................................................................ 100 7.1 Policies often have no explicit goals ............................................................................. 101 7.2 No definition of RAND ................................................................................................. 103 7.3 Lack of guidance on appropriateness of including patented technology and risk of over- inclusion .................................................................................................................................. 104 7.4 Still a restricted degree of transparency ........................................................................ 107 7.5 Large variation in detail and specificity of policies ...................................................... 110 7.6 Problems of legacy ........................................................................................................ 110 7.7 Policies struggle with patent transfer issues .................................................................. 112 7.8 In summary .................................................................................................................... 113 About the Authors .................................................................................................................... 114 Annex 1: Detailed notes for the overview tables .................................................................... 115 2 1 Introduction 1.1 Standards setting organizations and intellectual property The idea that the implementation of standards could require the use of patented technology is hardly new. As early as 1932, ANSI’s Committee on Procedure made the following recommenda- tion: That as a general proposition patented design or methods not be incorporated in standards. However, each case should be considered on its own merits and if a patentee be willing to grand such rights as will avoid monopolistic tenden- cies, favorable consideration to the inclusion of such patented designs or methods in a standard might be given.1 The recommendation was adopted unanimously, and marked the creation of what may be the first formal intellectual property rights (IPR) policy relating to standards. In any case, the recommen- dation addressed several topics that remain key elements in the current debate on IPR in standards. We have come a long way since 1932. It was not until the late 1980s, however, that the incorporation of patented technology in standards began to attract wider attention. This broader scrutiny may have been in large part the product of the IPR issues that surfaced regarding GSM, a mobile technology that would eventually become extremely successful.2 Unfortunately, the hosts of the GSM standards development process had not yet adopted effective IPR policies.3 Nor was this unusual, because in the 1990s, many if not virtually all standards setting organizations (SSOs) lacked established IPR policies. Among those that did have policies in place, most were summary in nature, and many have therefore been amended and updated in later years. It is hardly a surprise