IPR Policies and Practices of a Representative Group of Standards-Setting Organizations Worldwide Rudi Bekkers, Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands Andrew Updegrove, Gesmer Updegrove LLP May 2013 Commissioned by the Committee on Intellectual Property Management in Standard-Setting Processes. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Excerpted from a longer version available at http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/step/PGA_058712 1 Table of contents A1. Introduction ................................................................................................ 3 A1.1 Scope of this appendix ............................................................................ 3 A1.2 Introduction to standards setting organizations and intellectual property 3 A1.3 Selection of the studied SSOs ................................................................. 6 A1.4 Methodology ............................................................................................ 9 A1.5 This appendix is not an assessment of effectiveness or impact ............ 11 A1.6 Nomenclature ........................................................................................ 12 A1.7 What’s in a word? .................................................................................. 15 A1.8 Structure of this appendix ...................................................................... 16 A1.9 Disclaimer .............................................................................................. 17 A2 Introduction to the SSOs .......................................................................... 18 A2.1 ISO, IEC and ITU ................................................................................... 18 A2.2 IEEE ...................................................................................................... 20 A2.3 ETSI ...................................................................................................... 21 A2.4 ANSI ...................................................................................................... 22 A2.5 IETF ....................................................................................................... 23 A2.6 OASIS ................................................................................................... 24 A2.7 VITA ...................................................................................................... 26 A2.8 W3C ...................................................................................................... 27 A2.9 HDMI Forum .......................................................................................... 28 A2.10 NFC Forum ........................................................................................ 29 A2.11 Overview of the studied organizations ............................................... 30 A3 Policy objectives and organizational embedding .................................. 31 A3.1 Policy objectives .................................................................................... 31 A3.2 How members/participants are bound by IPR rules ............................... 34 A3.3 Dealing with affiliates ............................................................................. 41 1 A3.4 IPR policies and third parties ................................................................. 43 A3.5 Reflection on binding measures ............................................................ 44 A4 Defining essential IPRs ............................................................................ 47 A4.1 The definition of essential intellectual property rights ............................ 48 A4.2 Reflection on the definition of essential IPR .......................................... 67 A5 Disclosure of essential IPR ...................................................................... 69 A5.1 General disclosure procedure ................................................................ 72 A5.2 Disclosure in relation to organizations and individuals’ knowledge ........ 78 A5.3 Timing of patent disclosure .................................................................... 85 A5.4 Information to be provided in disclosures .............................................. 89 A5.5 Whether content of technical meetings is public or not .......................... 98 A5.6 Reflection on disclosure: a dual process ............................................. 100 A6 Licensing commitments ......................................................................... 104 A6.1 General commitment procedure .......................................................... 104 A6.2 Specified and sought licensing modes or covenants ........................... 129 A6.3 Transfer of patents encumbered with licensing obligations ................. 134 A6.4 Ex-ante disclosure of most restrictive licensing fees ........................... 138 A6.5 Link to patent pools ............................................................................. 142 A6.6 Reflection on licensing commitments .................................................. 144 Supplement 1: Detailed notes for the overview tables ............................. 148 2 A1. Introduction A1.1 Scope of this annex As part of its study on intellectual property management in standard-setting processes, the US National Academies of Science (NAS) commissioned a separate, preparatory study of which the main results are contained in this annex. The terms of reference for the study reported in this annex are reproduced in Box 1. Box 1. Original terms of reference for the study underlying this annex Main topic: IPR policies and practices of a representative group of SSOs worldwide. Factors to consider: a) scope of disclosure (essential patents, likely essential patents, simply that a participant holds patents likely to be essential, or no specific disclosure but licensing commitment, etc.); b) licensing commitment (essential patents entailed in final standard or broader; cover patent applications); c) timing of disclosure (mandated or encouraged); d) patent searches (required or implied); e) form of disclosure; f) licensing assurance (patent holders choose from RAND/FRAND, etc. or pre-determined by SSO); g) licensing terms (allow reciprocity, scope of use, ex ante disclosure, patent pooling); (how many disputes have arisen, how resolved); i) anti-trust considerations; h) how communicated and enforced j); measures of success-wide or quick adoption of standards. Some of these aims were understood to be difficult to achieve (see also Section A1.5). Given the committee’s express desire to commission a fact-based analysis of IPR policies and practices, the focus and reach of the study was therefore adjusted in some respects in consultation with NAS representatives. A1.2 Introduction to 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 recommendation. 3 That as a general proposition patented design or methods not be incorporated in standards. However, each case should be con- sidered on its own merits and if a patentee be willing to grand such rights as will avoid monopolistic tendencies, favorable con- sideration 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 recommendation 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. 1 ANSI Minutes of Meeting of Standards Council, November 30, 1932. Item 2564: Relation of Patented Designs or Methods to Standards. 2 For early issues on IPR in standards including GSM, see Bekkers, R. N. A. (2001). Mobile Telecommunications Standards: GSM, UMTS, TETRA and ERMES. Boston, MA: Artech House. 3 GSM standardization started in the European organization for PTTs called CEPT, and was moved to ETSI on the establishment of that organization in 1988. 4 It is hardly a surprise that the greatest evolution in both the substance as well as the detail of IPR policies has arisen in the area of information and communica- tions technology (ITC). This development has been driven by a variety of factors, most of which relate to the density of patent filings in this area of commerce, the speed with which innovation and productization occurs in these domains, and the degree to which achieving interoperability and “network effects” has become essential to realizing new commercial opportunities. In consequence, the terms of IPR policies in this area have become critical, again for a variety of reasons. IPR policies impose obligations on participating