July 2022

Guest Post by Prof. Contreras: Continental’s Antitrust Suit Against Avanci is Dismissed, but with Fewer Consequences for FRAND

Patent

Guest Post by Professor Jorge L. Contreras

On June 22, 2022, the Fifth Circuit reissued its opinion in Continental v. Avanci, replacing an earlier opinion that it issued on February 28.  While the reissued opinion continues to uphold the district court’s dismissal of the suit, it also eliminates the entirety of the Circuit’s earlier dicta concerning the nature of FRAND commitments and Article III standing, dicta that was heavily criticized by amici curiae.

Background

The standardization of wireless telecommunications protocols is largely conducted under the auspices of the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) and organizational partners such as the US-based Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) and Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS). Parties that participate in these standards development organizations (SDOs) generally agree to license patents that are essential to the implementation of those standards (standards-essential patents or SEPs) to manufacturers of standardized products on terms that are fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND).

Avanci is a collective licensing platform (similar to a patent pool) that was formed in 2016 to license wireless SEPs to manufacturers in vertical markets including the automotive industry. As of this writing, Avanci’s website indicates that it has licensed SEPs to 37 automotive brands including BMW, Volkswagen, Mercedes, Ford and GM, and that its licenses cover SEPs held by nearly fifty different firms including Nokia, Qualcomm, Ericsson and InterDigital.  Avanci’s licensing rate for automotive 4G SEPs is $15 per vehicle.  Though Avanci itself is not a member of the relevant SDOs, most of the SEP holders participating in Avanci are members, thereby requiring that Avanci abide by their FRAND licensing requirements.

The Litigation

Continental AG is a German supplier of automotive electrical and navigation systems to automotive manufacturers.  In 2019, Continental’s U.S. subsidiary filed suit against Avanci, Nokia, Sharp and several other SEP holders, alleging, among other things, that Avanci breached its FRAND commitment by refusing to offer Continental and other automotive component suppliers a license to SEPs covering the 2G, 3G and 4G standards.  Specifically, Continental alleged that because Avanci’s $15 per-vehicle licensing fee would be exorbitant (i.e., in excess of FRAND) if applied to the $75 telematics control unit (TCU) sold by Continental, Avanci refused to license SEPs to component suppliers like Continental, and instead offered licenses only to automobile manufacturers.  Then, because $15 is negligible in comparison to the overall cost of an automobile, automobile manufacturers would likely pay the charge, but later seek indemnification from Continental for those supra-FRAND costs.  Continental thus argued that it was damaged by Avanci’s refusal to license it directly at a FRAND rate.

Continental’s complaint alleged that this refusal constituted, among other things, a breach of the nondiscrimination element of the SEP holders’ FRAND obligations, a group boycott in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and an abuse of the standardization system constituting monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

Dismissal at the District Court (485 F. Supp. 3d 712 (N.D. Tex. 2020))

Chief Judge Lynn in the Northern District of Texas declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Continental’s breach of contract and other state law claims and, given that the court lacked diversity jurisdiction over the parties, dismissed those claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Continental subsequently filed an action in the District of Delaware making those claims).

Judge Lynn next granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that Continental lacked antitrust standing to bring suit.  First, she held that Continental did not adequately plead an antitrust injury, as it did not suffer direct harm from Avanci’s alleged failure to grant it a SEP license.  She points out that despite Avanci’s alleged refusal, Continental continued to sell TCUs to automotive customers, and any indemnification claims by those customers were speculative.  Moreover, she found that any antitrust violation arising from Avanci’s charging SEP licensing rates in excess of FRAND were felt by the automotive manufacturers and not by Continental.  Accordingly, Continental was a “remote or indirect” victim of the alleged conduct, and therefor lacking standing to bring suit.

The court went on to find that, even if Continental had standing, its Sherman Act claims would fail.  Under Section 1, the rule of reason analysis as applied to patent pools is generally satisfied when pool members are free to license the pooled patents individually, as is the case with Avanci.  Citing Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), the court noted that “[t]o the extent the Licensor Defendants refused to negotiate with Plaintiff or only agreed to do so at the same prices at which they license to the OEMs, this alleges at best parallel conduct and the possibility of concerted action, which are insufficient to state a claim of an unlawful agreement to restrain trade” (485 F. Supp. 3d at 732).

Under Section 2, the court observed that the additional monopoly power that a SEP holder obtains through the inclusion of its patented technology in a standard is “inevitable as a very frequent consequence of standard setting, and is necessary to achieve the benefits served by the standard, including procompetitive benefits” (citing Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc., 486 U.S. 492, 501 (1988)) (485 F. Supp. 3d at 733).  It further noted that “[a] lawful monopolist’s charging of monopoly prices, is not only not unlawful; it is an important element of the free-market system” and that “[a] patent owner may use price discrimination to maximize the patent’s value without violating antitrust law.” (485 F. Supp. 3d at 734).  Expressly disagreeing with other cases holding that “deception of an [SDO] constitutes the type of anticompetitive conduct required to support a § 2 claim”, Judge Lynn found that “[e]ven if such deception had also excluded Defendants’ competitors from being included in the standard, such harms to competitors, rather than to the competitive process itself, are not anticompetitive.” (Id. at 735). Accordingly, she found no violation of Section 2.   Continental appealed.

Fifth Circuit – Withdrawn Decision (27 F.4th 326 (5th Cir. 2022))

On February 28, 2022, the Fifth Circuit, in a surprising turn of events, vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss Continental’s claims for lack of Article III standing. This holding obviated the Circuit’s need to address the district court’s holdings regarding antitrust standing and the merits.

The Fifth Circuit’s decision to reject standing on Article III grounds – a theory that was neither briefed by the parties nor addressed by the district court – surprised many.  This move was still more surprising given that the Circuit based much of its reasoning on facts that were not in evidence and assumptions that were not supported by the record.

For example, the Circuit reasoned that Continental was not an intended third party beneficiary of the FRAND commitments made by Avanci’s members because Continental was not a member of the relevant SDOs.  This conclusion contradicts numerous other cases, including the Fifth Circuit’s own decision in HTC Corp. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, 12 F.4th 476, 481 (5th Cir. 2021), in which it held that “[c]ompanies seeking to license under [FRAND] terms become third-party beneficiaries of the contract between the standard-essential patent holder and the standard setting organization” and “are thus enabled to enforce the terms of that contract.”

Likewise, the Circuit reasoned that a component manufacturer like Continental “does not need SEP licenses” from SEP holders because those SEP holders “license the [automobile manufacturers]” that purchase its components.  This conclusion overlooks the fact that even if a SEP holder grants licenses to automotive manufacturers, not all manufacturers are licensed at any given time. Moreover, except in the unusual case in which a component supplier makes components to order for an automobile manufacturer, the manufacturer’s license does not necessarily insulate the component supplier from claims of patent infringement.

Rehearing and Withdrawal of Fifth Circuit Decision

These and other issues in the Fifth Circuit’s opinion led Continental and various amici to petition the Fifth Circuit for rehearing en banc.

On June 13, 2022, the Fifth Circuit treated the pending petition for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing, granted that petition, and withdrew its February 28 opinion in its entirety.

On June 21, the Circuit issued an unpublished, nonprecedential per curiam opinion in which it “affirm[ed] the judgment of the district court that Continental failed to state claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.”  Thus, the Circuit’s prior discussion of Article III standing, as well as its statements regarding the nature and beneficiaries of the FRAND commitment, are nullified.  In addition, by mentioning only the district court’s substantive Section 1 and 2 holdings, the Circuit does not uphold the district court’s ruling on antitrust standing.

Conclusions

Continental v. Avanci is not necessarily over.  Additional appeals of the Northern District of Texas decision are still available, and the Delaware contractual breach case continues.  Yet, the Fifth Circuit’s unusual withdrawal of its February 28 decision is a positive development in the evolving law concerning FRAND and SEP licensing.  First, it reinforces the widely held understanding that all implementers of standards are intended third party beneficiaries of FRAND licensing commitments made to SDOs (or at least declines to introduce dicta contrary to that understanding).  Second, it fails to support the notion that a SEP holder may avoid its obligation to license the suppliers of standardized components by licensing their end customers.  And most importantly, it declines to support the abstemious construction of antitrust standing adopted by the district court.  While there is clearly more to come in this and other disputes between component suppliers and SEP holders, the Fifth Circuit has avoided further muddying the waters in this already murky area.

[Note: the author led a group of thirteen law and economics scholars advised by Setty Chachkes PLLC in the filing of an amicus brief supporting en banc rehearing of this case.]

Atextual Conditions for Patentability and Stare Decisis

Patent, ,

by Dennis Crouch

The new petition in SawStop v. USPTO (Supreme Court 2022) focuses the question of whether COURTS have power to create non-statutory patentability doctrines.

Does the judiciary have the authority to require a patent applicant to meet a condition for patentability not required by the Patent Act?

SawStop Petition for Certiorari.  You might imagine this argument being raised as tied to any number of patent doctrines: atextual eligibility limitations; assignor estoppel; doctrine of equivalents, etc.  This particular case focuses on obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP).  Question 2 of the petition focuses the question further: “Is the judicially created doctrine of nonstatutory double patenting ultra vires?”

Section 103 of the Patent Act generally defines the doctrine of obviousness and instructs tribunals to look to the prior art and consider whether the claimed invention is sufficiently beyond the prior art. But, even if a claims are found patentable under Section 103, the USPTO still considers obviousness-type double patenting.  Even if there is no prior art, the USPTO still bars a patentee from obtaining a separate patent claiming an obvious variation of already-issued claims held by the patentee/inventor. Thus, although 102(b)(2) explains that certain prior-filed patents are not prior art when attributed to the applicant/inventor, OTDP steps in on the back-side to effectively assert those excused documents as prior art.  Pause here to note that one big difference between obviousness and OTDP is that applicants can skirt OTDP rejections by filing a terminal disclaimer that effectively links the two similar patents together along two axes: same term and same owners.

My middle school shop teacher was missing fingers courtesy of a table saw. Yours? Steve Gass has a PhD in physics and also a patent attorney.  He was doing some amateurs woodworking when he conceived of his SawStop technology.  The basic idea: if the spinning blade ever touching human skin, the electrical connection triggers an emergency brake that stops/retracts the blade within 5 milliseconds.  “Fast enough to turn a life changing event into a minor cut.”  Gass has over 100 patents and runs the innovative product company SafeSaw.

Gass’s U.S. Pat No. 9,927,796 was filed back in 2002 — claiming priority to a 2001 provisional application. That patent finally issued in 2018–only after SawSafe filed a civil action and received a court-judgment in its favor.  A 1974 patent had disclosed use of a safety circuit and a braking-means. However, the district court concluded  that the prior art was not enabling — i.e., a person of skilled in the art would not be able to construct (or even design) the claimed invention without undue experimentation. [2016 Decision].

Another 16 issued patents also claim priority back to this 2002 application.  One application is still pending, Application 15/935,432, that claims an obvious variant of what has already been patenting.   The USPTO rejected the ‘432 application based upon the judicially created non-statutory doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.  SawStop did not want to file a terminal disclaimer on this valuable patent and instead appealed.  On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed without opinion in a R.36 Judgment.  Now, SawStop has petitioned the Supreme Court asking that the doctrine be eliminated.

= = =

Although the petition does not cite the Supreme Court’s recent abortion decision, it certainly picks-up upon some of the same themes:

  • A right to abortion “is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution.”  Similarly, obviousness type double patenting has no grounding in the Patent Act.
  • The fact that a precedent is old does not convert that precedent to a sacred text.

The Supreme Court in Bilski addressed this issue to some degree in the context of the non-statutory categorical bars of abstract ideas; laws of nature and natural phenomenon.

While these exceptions are not required by the statutory text, they are consistent with the notion that a patentable process must be “new and useful.” And, in any case, these exceptions have defined the reach of the statute as a matter of statutory stare decisis going back 150 years.

Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010).  The Bilski court found a small textual hook, but also identified the doctrine as built upon longstanding precedent.

The longstanding nature of precedent is important in the patent context.  But unlike in the Constitutional abortion context, we have always had direct statutes guiding patent issuance and enforcement, beginning with the First Congress in 1790. In the area of obviousness, the doctrine was developed by courts and then implemented by statute in 1952.  In Graham though, the Supreme Court indicated that, with minor exceptions, the 1952 Act maintained all the old precedent.

Double Patenting in the Statute.  In its 2014 Abbvie decision, the Federal Circuit wrote that Obviousness Type Double Patenting is “grounded in the text of the Patent Act.”   In particular, the court honed-in on Section 101’s use of the singular article “a” in describing what is granted to an inventor: “a patent.”

While often described as a court-created doctrine, obviousness-type double patenting is grounded in the text of the Patent Act. . . . Section 101 reads: “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, … may obtain a patent therefor.” 35 U.S.C. § 101 (emphasis added). Thus, § 101 forbids an individual from obtaining more than one patent on the same invention, i.e., double patenting.

Abbvie Inc. v. Mathilda and Terence Kennedy Inst. of Rheumatology Tr., 764 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2014).  But Judge Dyk’s conclusions in Abbvie are not well grounded themselves as there are several ways this provision could be interpreted. It also proves too much, since there are ways for a patentee to obtain multiple patents covering patentably indistinct inventions: (1) via terminal disclaimer; (2) via restriction.  If the patentee files a terminal disclaimer then the patent office will allow multiple patents to issue.  If the patentee files a divisional application (following a restriction) then the patent office will allow multiple patents to issue even without a terminal disclaimer.

 

The Federal Circuit’s Precedent/Outcomes Mismatch

Patent

By Paul R. Gugliuzza, Temple University Beasley School of Law; Jonas Anderson, American University Washington College of Law; and Jason Rantanen, University of Iowa College of Law

Recently, we wrote about the small number of mandamus decisions on transfer of venue that the Federal Circuit has designated as precedential and about how those precedential decisions are unrepresentative of overall outcomes. Specifically, the Federal Circuit has labeled only 15% of its venue mandamus orders as precedential. And, though the Federal Circuit grants venue mandamus less than a third of the time, the court has granted nearly 80% of the petitions it has decided in precedential orders.

As a comparison, we wanted to share some data on precedential opinion rates in regular Federal Circuit appeals (as opposed to mandamus petitions). Our data make two things clear.

  • First, opinions in regular appeals are more than twice as likely to be precedential than orders on venue mandamus.
  •  Second, the outcomes reported in those precedential opinions—like precedential mandamus orders—are skewed toward cases in which the Federal Circuit disagrees with the decision below.

On the first point, here’s the breakdown of precedential opinions, nonprecedential opinions, and Rule 36 affirmances for all Federal Circuit appeals from 2008 through 2021.

Table 1: Federal Circuit Panel Appeal Rulings, 2008 through 2021

Table 2 below breaks the data down by tribunal of origin.

Table 2: Federal Circuit Panel Appeal Rulings By Tribunal of Origin, 2008 through 2021

These two tables make clear that, overall, 30% of Federal Circuit appeals are decided in a precedential opinion. In district court cases—the most relevant comparator for venue mandamus petitions—the figure is 42%.

Either way, the proportion of appeals resolved in precedential opinions is substantially higher than for venue mandamus petitions. Moreover, the Federal Circuit decides more than a quarter of appeals in no-opinion affirmances—a mechanism the court does not employ for mandamus petitions. If we excluded Rule 36 affirmances from our calculations, the differences between appeals and mandamus orders would be even greater.

On the second point about skewed outcomes: Like with mandamus petitions, the results in precedential opinions disproportionately disagree with the lower court or agency. Table 3 below reports the outcomes and modes of disposition of all Federal Circuit appeals (excluding a few hundred appeals that were dismissed or that had an unusual outcome—namely, something other than affirmed, reversed, vacated, etc.) from 2008 through 2021.

Table 3: Federal Circuit Panel Appeal Rulings, Excluding Dismissals and Other Outcomes, 2008 through 2021

As the bottom row of the table makes clear, overall, the Federal Circuit fully affirms in 78% of appeals. Yet, as the first row of data indicates, only 53% of precedential Federal Circuit opinions affirm the lower tribunal; 47% vacate or reverse, at least in part. By contrast, nonprecedential opinions (the second row of data on the table) fully affirm 81% of the time. And, as indicated toward the bottom of the table, nearly 30% of Federal Circuit appeals are decided in no-opinion Rule 36 affirmances, which, by definition, also fully affirm across the board.

In short, looking only at precedential opinions, one might think that, in any given appeal, there’s about a 50-50 chance the Federal Circuit will at least partly disagree with the tribunal below. But, in reality, fewer than a quarter of the Federal Circuit’s decisions disagree with the tribunal below in any respect.

The disparity between the outcomes reported in precedential opinions versus overall results is equally stark when the data is limited to the primary sources of Federal Circuit patent cases—appeals from the district courts, the PTO, and the ITC. From those three tribunals, combined, only 48% of precedential opinions fully affirm. But the overall fully-affirmed rate in appeals from those tribunals is 73%. The figures below illustrate those vast disparities.

Figure 1: Federal Circuit Precedential Rulings in DCT, PTO, and ITC Appeals, 2008 through 2021

Figure 2: Federal Circuit Nonprecedential Rulings in DCT, PTO, and ITC Appeals, 2008 through 2021

The skew of precedential opinions toward decisions that disagree with the lower tribunal provide a misleading sense of what Federal Circuit’s rulings look like day in and day out, just like the Federal Circuit’s precedential venue mandamus orders provide an inflated sense of the likelihood of mandamus being granted. These findings also raise interesting questions about what happens to patent doctrine when it is developed in cases that are not representative of overall outcomes.

The data used in this post comes from the Federal Circuit Dataset Project, available at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/UQ2SF7 or empirical.law.uiowa.edu.

 

Supreme Court – Looking Forward to 2022-2023

Patent

By Dennis Crouch

The Supreme Court has closed-out its 2021-2022 term without deciding or granting certiorari in any patent cases.  Overall, the court denied certiorari in 40+ patent cases, including the biggest case of American Axle.  I’ll post a review of those denied cases later this month. Meanwhile we can start a preview for the 2022-2023 term.

Eight patent cases are now pending before the Supreme Court. Several focus on the written description and enablement requirements of 35 USC 112(a).

The current most-likely big case is Amgen Inc., et al. v. Sanofi, No. 21-757.  Amgen asks fundamental questions of how the enablement doctrine should operate and whether enablement is a question-of-fact or a question-of-law. These are important issues fundamental to patentability that also touch on some of the same principles as  the eligibility cases.  The Court has requested an amicus filing from the Solicitor General.  Interactive Wearables, LLC v. Polar Electro Oy, No. 21-1281, is a patent eligibility case, but it asks a related question about the extent that principles of Section 112 are applicable to the eligibility analysis.  In Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc., No. 21-1566 focuses on “full scope” written description – arguing that the Federal Circuit’s application goes too far beyond the statutory text.  Biogen International GmbH, et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 21-1567, also focuses on the written description requirement – asking what level of disclosure is necessary for a claim limitation requiring a therapeutic treatment to be “effective.”

The one other case that I would suggest has a good chance of certiorari is Hyatt v. USPTO.  But, that case focuses on the summary judgment standard for APA cases and so would in reality have very little impact on the patent system.

The final three cases are all well written briefs, but I expect that they have a very low chance of being heard because of intervening events:

  1. Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated, No. 21-1327 (appellate standing – same question as the already denied parallel Apple v Qualcomm petition);
  2. CustomPlay, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 21-1527 (can the same PTAB judges both institute and decide IPR – I believe that Arthrex implicitly solved this issue, at least from a Constitutional perspective); and
  3. Worlds Inc. v. Activision Blizzard Inc., et al., No. 21-1554 (eligibility same question as the already denied petition in American Axle).

The court takes a summer break and then returns in the fall for the October 2022 term.