1. Standards and competition law Michael Adam DG Competition, European Commission (speaking in a personal capacity - the views expressed are not necessarily those of the European Commission)
Please edit the Master Layout to include information specific to the presentation. For slides for the DG/DeputyDG, delete “[Directorate], [Unit]”.
(1) Slides
(i) View… Master… Slide Master, (ii) On the first slide, add the Conference, Venue and Date in the box in the top left corner, (iii) On both the first and second slides, in the bottom left text box, add the Directorate and Unit information, (iv) Close Master View
(2) Handout pages
(i) View… Master… Handout Master, (ii) In the bottom left text box, add the Directorate and Unit information, (iii) Close Master View
(3) Notes pages
(i) View… Master… Notes Master, (ii) In the bottom left text box, add the Directorate and Unit information, (iii) Close Master View

2. IP and competition law have the same goals
No inherent conflict between IP and competition law
Both share the same objective
Consumer welfare and efficient resource allocation
Both necessary to promote innovation
Antitrust intervention is rare
Standardisation creates a specific context at the intersection of IP and competition law

3. Standards bring benefits
Globalising, knowledge-based economy
More and more products have to work together
Of particular importance in IT/communications
Interoperability: avoids lock-in
Follow-on innovation
Enable competing implementations by multiple vendors

4. But there is an antitrust risk
Group of companies decide on commonly agreed specifications (generally in a standards body)
Can be a choice of one technology over another
Technologies often covered by patents
Different to how competition occurs ‘traditionally’
One-off choice between different technologies
The technology that is chosen is the standard

5. May mean market power Depends on importance of standard in market
i.e. is it commercially indispensable to comply?
Depends on lock-in
sunk costs
network effects

6. May mean market power which would not have existed
Depends on ex ante alternatives
Relevance of «but for» scenario
What would have happened ex ante is a good benchmark
Strips out the ability to charge resulting from the standard
Good indication of what a FRAND price is

7. How do you keep the benefits but protect against the risks?
Ex ante disclosure of essential patents
Allows informed decision by participants
Protects against "patent ambush"
Commitment to license on FRAND terms
Access to standard for all
Quid pro quo for being included in the standard
Designed to constrain ex post exercise of market power resulting from standard (pricing, other terms)

8. Injunctions SEP-based injunctions potentially anti-competitive Effects
Standardisation context: commitment to license (FRAND)
The patent has been included in the standard on that basis
The company has chosen to provide access to all in exchange for monetisation - not to exclude
Effects
May exclude products from the market
May lead to other harmful terms through a distortion of negotiations (e.g. royalty level, other clauses)
There should be a willing licensee

9. Google/MMI merger decision (para 107)
"Depending on the circumstances, it may be that the threat of injunction, the seeking of an injunction or indeed the actual enforcement of an injunction granted against a good faith potential licensee, may significantly impede effective competition by, for example, forcing the potential licensee into agreeing to potentially onerous licensing terms which it would otherwise not have agreed to."

10. Google/MMI merger decision (para 126)
"The seeking or enforcement of injunctions on the basis of SEPs is also not, of itself, anti-competitive. In particular, and depending on the circumstances, it may be legitimate for the holder of SEPs to seek an injunction against a potential licensee which is not willing to negotiate in good faith on FRAND terms."

11. Injunctions Proceedings opened in 3 cases in 2012
Samsung
Motorola/Apple
Motorola/Microsoft
Statements of Objections relating to the seeking and enforcement of SEP-based injunctions issued in the first two cases
December 2012 and May 2013 respectively

12. Vice-President Almunia (Sep 2012)
"The fact that we have received many complaints related to standards-essential patents also shows that there is a great need for guidance. I want to tell you that I am willing to provide clarity to the market through our enforcement. Having said that, I am also convinced that the industry needs to do its homework too. I expect the leading companies in the sector not to misuse their intellectual property rights. It is high time they look for negotiated solutions - I am tempted to call them ‘peace talks’ – that would put an end to the patent wars."