Patent Nonuse: Are Patent Pools a Possible Solution?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alireza Chavosh
Keyword(s):  

2010 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 703-725 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gastón Llanes ◽  
Stefano Trento


Author(s):  
Daniel Quint
Keyword(s):  


Climate Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 225-265
Author(s):  
Joshua D. Sarnoff

Abstract Governmental and particularly private funding has recently and dramatically expanded for both beccs and dac technologies. This funding and the associated research, development, and deployment efforts will generate intellectual property rights, particularly patent rights in nets. As with access to medicines, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted concerns that patent rights may incentivize RD&D at the cost of affordable access to the relevant technologies. Further, access may be restricted to particular countries based on sovereignty concerns to seek preferential supply agreements through up-front funding. As a result, nations will likely turn to controversial ex-post measures, such as compulsory licensing, to assure access and to control prices of the needed technologies. The same concerns with patent rights likely will affect RD&D of nets. Although international ex-ante measures exist (such as patent pools) which would help to minimize these concerns, such measures may not induce the requisite voluntary contributions, or may fail to materialize due to political disagreements. Focusing on both US law and international developments, this article proposes various ex-ante measures that can be adopted by national governments and private funders to minimize the likely forthcoming worldwide conflicts that will arise over balancing innovation incentives for, and affordable access to, patented nets.



Author(s):  
Daniel Quint
Keyword(s):  




2017 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 690-709 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge L. Contreras

In an environment in which widely adopted technical standards may each be covered by large numbers of patents, there have been increasing calls for courts to determine “fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory” (FRAND) royalties payable to holders of standards-essential patents (SEPs) using “top-down” methodologies. Top-down royalty approaches begin with the aggregate royalty that should be payable with respect to all SEPs covering a particular standard, and then allocate a portion of the total to individual SEPs. Top-down approaches avoid many drawbacks associated with bottom-up approaches in which royalties for individual SEPs are assessed, often in an inconsistent and piecemeal manner, without regard for the other SEPs that cover the standard. Yet despite the potential benefits of top-down methodologies, one of the most promising means for determining aggregate royalty levels—joint agreement by the members of the relevant standards-development organization (SDO)—has gained little traction. The idea of SDO participants jointly negotiating FRAND royalties attracted the attention of commentators and antitrust agencies about a decade ago, when a handful of SDOs began to explore mandatory ex ante rate disclosure requirements. But few SDOs adopted such policies, and joint negotiations were never incorporated into the mainstream standardization process. One reason that SDOs have been hesitant to endorse joint royalty negotiations is the perceived risk of antitrust liability arising from concerted action among competitors. But as numerous commentators and antitrust officials have reiterated, this fear is largely misplaced in the context of industry standard-setting. Thus, SDOs should follow the lead of patent pools and begin more actively to determine aggregate patent royalty burdens for standards that they develop. In addition, antitrust and competition authorities should assure the market that collective agreement on aggregate royalty rates alone should not give rise to antitrust liability.



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document