Centre for Internet and Society

Piracy

royson — 2009-01-26T10:23:49Z

Context

Loss of civil liberties as a result of increased and indiscriminate enforcement activities by State and private bodies.
Conflation of piracy with concepts such as terrorism, child pornography and drug trafficking which prevents legitimate off-line and online sharing and growth of P2P technologies.
Long term social impact of sizable section of the citizenry that views themselves as operating outside the law.

Research Agenda

Analyse different acts that are considered piracy from legal, enforcement, corporate and general public perspectives. Document changes in the definition of piracy over time in different contexts. Interrogate the double standards employed by corporations, film industry using case-studies such as T-Series, YouTube/torrent leaks, etc.
Study the prevalence of piracy in different regions of the world, market segments, technologies and sections of society. Document the social, cultural, technological and economic repercussions of these increased levels of piracy. For example: a) understanding how piracy contribute to increased consumer choice; b) examining the correlation between P2P and piracy-based distribution and enhancement of reputation and growth in market share of individual artists, bands and small companies.
Document the contribution of pirates to the development of cutting edge technologies and pushing of the limits of end-user experience. Analysing different techniques for movie, book, television, software and music piracy employed by individuals and industries.
Identify and document various factors which contribute to high level of piracy in developing countries. Design and propose strategies and policy positions such as: parallel imports, compulsory licensing, media surcharge and open licenses to reduce levels of copyright infringement.
Document and analyze various methods and methodologies for studying and tracking piracy. For example aggregation and consolidation of P2P statistics by companies such as Big Champagne. Provide technical strategies for those engaged in legitimate sharing to protect their privacy and civil rights against surveillance technologies.
Studying national and regional laws that governs copyright infringement and propose changes that protect Access to Knowledge. Examining case law for trends, including analysis of the kinds of punishments which are prescribed for copyright infringement.
Documenting due procedure for enforcement against individuals and organizations? Analyzing the legal validity of evidence submitted by enforcement agencies for different forms of alleged off-line and online copyright infringement.
Document and analyse the attention paid by developing country policy makers to piracy in different markets and technologies. Identify and monitor state agencies engaged in tracking piracy and undertaking enforcement activities?
How do citizens justify acts of piracy? How do they view themselves and others as criminals?
Document the correlation between high speed Internet connections and peer-to-peer file sharing programmes and illegal and legal sharing of knowledge.

Resources

Music industry ‘should embrace illegal websites’

Causes of illegal music product’s existence

Creativity policy pits internet providers against pirates

Piracy is good?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/substantive-areas/new-pedagogies/piracy

Photos

pranesh — 2008-12-01T13:17:32Z

Photographs of Open Access Day

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/content-access/photos

Pervasive Technologies: Patent Pools

praskrishna — 2013-06-27T07:16:31Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-patent-pools.pdf

Pervasive Technologies: Patent Pools

nehaa — 2013-07-03T06:57:59Z

In this research paper, Nehaa Chaudhari gives an analysis of patent pools. She discusses the working of a patent pool, study patent pool in other areas of technology, and patenting in telecom and related technology.

Click to download the full research paper here (PDF, 475 Kb)

Introduction

The network landscape over the past few years has been characterized by several battles of supremacy between two or more rival technologies. [1] These battles have included, inter alia, the constant efforts at besting rivals in the arena of patenting innovations in technology, often as a result characterised by the imposition of high royalties on rivals, for the use of one’s patents. However, having realised that such efforts at besting the other could prove detrimental for all parties concerned in the long run, and stall technological advancements which would in turn translate into lower business revenue, mechanisms were devised to ensure a relatively equitable utilization of patents in the market place. One such mechanism that has been developed is that of patent pools.

Patent pools have been developed around most areas of high end technology and research and development. Over the course of this paper, the author has confined herself to a study on patent pools in the area of telecommunications, and the issues to be addressed therein. Specifically, the author will be dealing with patent pools around 3G, 4G, LTE, TD-SCDMA and TD-LTE technologies. Within this framework, the author seeks to examine what are patent pools, whether and what kind of patent pools exist, their associated costs, their licensing arrangements and the structure of the payment of royalty, and the feasibility of these patent pools.

Understanding Patent Pools

Patent pools are agreements among patent owners through which patent owners combine their patents, waiving their exclusive rights to the patent to enable others, or themselves, to obtain rights to license the pooled patents.[2] Therefore, such pools may be focussed either on cross licensing, that is companies mutually making their patents available to each other, or on out licensing, that is, a group of companies making a collection of patents available to companies that do not or might not have patents of their own to contribute to the pool.[3] Typically, modern patent pools combine patents of various companies and are around inventions that are required to implement an established industry standard, are licensed as a whole (on an all or nothing basis) and not as individual licenses for patents owned by various companies within that pool, and are available to any non member for licensing.[4] Such licensing is done under a standard agreement and royalty rates, on a non discriminatory basis. The exception to this rule is that if certain members have contributed patents to the pool, they may receive more favourable terms, in recognition of their cross licensing relationship to the pool.[5] When viewed from a law and economics perspective, patent pools are seen to be an efficient institutional solution to various problems that arise when companies have complementary intellectual property rights, and these rights are essential to new technologies being used and employed. [6] However, this perspective also warns about the antitrust risks that may arise when competitors or potential competitors are involved in the coordination of their intellectual property. For instance, such pools may be used to allocate markets or otherwise chill competition. [7]

The Working of a Patent Pool

Generally, a patent pool may be administered in one of two ways- it may either have an administrative entity, or may also just be a system of cross licensing between two firms.[8] In case of the former, the licensing agency may be one of the patent holders, [9] or may be an independent licensing company (e.g. MPEG).[10]

The ownership of patents within the pool is retained by the owners, who then license them to the operator/administrator on a non exclusive basis, with sub licensing rights. This means that the owners are free to continue to license their patents on an individual basis, and the administrator also has the right to further license the patents to any party who is interested in licensing from the patent pool.[11] The responsibility of managing licensing and licenses is vested in the operator/administrator of the patent pool. Licensees are required to report sales and pay royalties to the pool administrator, who in turn would enforce the conditions of the license.[12] The distribution of royalties between the members of the pool is on the basis of a formula which may, or may not be transparent to non member licensees, with the pool operator retaining a management fee.[13] Typically, pool licenses are also structured in a manner so as to render difficult early termination by the licensee. The nature of the contract, once signed by a licensee, is typically binding in nature. Therefore, this would mean that the administrator of the patent pool could sue the licensee for non performance of the contract.[14] However, unless a pool operator is a member of the pool itself, it cannot sue for the infringement of patents. [15] Therefore, in the event that a patented technology were to be utilised without having taken a license, one or more of the individual patent owners would be required to take legal action. The involvement of the pool operator would be limited to being a part of any settlement discussions, if they were to occur, since one of the options for the alleged infringer could be to obtain a license for the patent pool.[16]

Drawing Parallels with Other Patent Pools

In this section of the paper, the author seeks to study patent pools in other areas of technology in order to better understand the structure and pricing of patent pools.

The ‘3C DVD’ Patent Pool
Established in 1998, the 3C DVD Patent Pool was the brainchild of Philips, Sony and Pioneer, and L.G. was subsequently inducted as a member. Philips acts as a licensing administrator for patents held by all the companies, which are over two hundred in number. These patents include those for the manufacture of the DVD players, and for the manufacture of the DVD disks themselves. [17] The player license per unit royalty was set as 3.5% of the net selling price of each player sold. This was subject to a minimum fee of $7 per unit, which after January 1, 2000 became $5 per unit. The disc license royalty was set as $0.05 per disc sold.[18]

The ‘DVD- 6C’ Patent Pool
Established in June 1999, the members of this pool at the time of its inception were Hitachi, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, Time Warner, Toshiba, and JVC. This pool was also for the DVD-ROM and the DVD- Video formats, with Toshiba acting as the administrator. [19] The royalties were set at $.075 per DVD Disc and 4% of the net sales price of DVD players and DVD decoders, with a minimum royalty of $4.00 per player or decoder, which saw a substantial reduction in 2003.[20] Subsequently, there were various changes that were made to this group, including the inclusion of newer standards, the joining and subsequent departure of IBM and other organizations as a member etc. Hitachi and Panasonic also act as regional agents in certain regions of the world.

The MPEG LA pool
The MPEG-2 is a standard for describing the coding of data inter alia, on DVD discs. For MPEG-2, a patent pool has been established, where the administrator is an independent, external organization known as the MPEG Licensing Authority, that set itself the aim to develop a patent pool for this standard. [21] The MPEG LA invited parties that thought they owned patents essential to this standard to join the program, which took off in 1997. At present, the pool has over a hundred patents and thousands of licensees.[22]

Patenting in Telecom and Related Technology

In this section of the paper, the author examines the working of patenting and patent pools in the telecommunications sector and in areas of related technology.

Early Developments and the Emergence of GSM
Patent pools are slowly developing into a key component of the telecommunications and the technological industry. The technology industry has been said to be an ecosystem, wherein there is a complex correlation between those who develop the technology and those who implement it in the creation and development of products.[23] In the telecommunications industry for instance, each handset manufacturer has declared only a small percentage of the various types of intellectual property assets that are necessary to implement a 3G compatible cellular phone. Therefore, the working in such a context is that various companies develop different technologies, and the same is shared by various manufacturers that seek to make use of this technology.[24]

The revival of patenting in the sector of telecommunications, post a period of decline in the decades of the 19540s to the 1980s, is attributed to the advent of the GSM standard for mobile communications in Europe.[25] In 1988, the main European operators invited equipment suppliers and developed a procedure wherein manufacturers would have to give up their intellectual property rights and to provide free world wide licenses for essential patents.[26] After opposition from the manufacturers, the approach was modified to one wherein the operators required the suppliers to sign a declaration agreeing to serve all of the GSM community on fair, reasonable and non discriminatory conditions.[27] In the early 1990s, Motorola by refusing to grant non discriminatory licenses for its substantial portfolio of essential patents and only agreeing to enter into cross license agreements further intensified the debate over IPRs in telecommunications. The company only lifted these restrictions after various countries across the world expressed a preference for this standard. The experience in this standard has demonstrated that it would not be accurate to expect that all parties holding essential patents would be willing to license them to all interested parties.[28] Companies were only willing to relax their licensing conditions once revenue generating opportunities increased.

The 3G3P and the UMTS
In July 2000 the 3G Patent Platform Partnership (3G3P) and its 18 partners notified various agreements to the end of establishing a worldwide patent platform. The purpose behind this was disclosed to be that of providing a voluntary and cost effective mechanism to evaluate, verify and license patents that were essential for third generation (3G) mobile communication systems.[29] It was also claimed that the said agreements would have pro competitive effects and that the purpose behind this Platform was the facilitation of access to technology and consequent entry into the markets.[30] On the intellectual property front, the purpose was to reduce cost uncertainties and the delays that were accompaniments of licensing numerous essential patents for complex technologies.

While it has often been considered to be a patent pool, this arrangement has been said to be only similar to a patent pool.[31] The 3G3P itself has argued that since it was a mere facilitator of transactions between patent holders and licensees, and that membership was open to both licensors and licensees as opposed to only licensors as in the case of patent pools, it would be fallacious to classify the Platform as a patent pool. Further, it has also been argued that licensing by members is not restricted to the Platform and that there was no bundling or real pooling of the patents per se and those licensees have the opportunity to pick and choose between patents with the licensing being carried out on a bilateral basis. Additionally, unlike in a patent pool, there is no single license between the patent holders as a collective and the licensee, and the parties have a choice between the Standard License of the Platform, and a negotiable individual license.[32] A Standard License provides for Standard Royalty Rate, a Maximum Cumulative Royalty Rate and a Cumulative Royalty Rate.[33] Bilateral transactions on the other hand, are negotiated between the parties where the consideration is to be determined on fair and equitable terms.[34] This Platform also provides for a price cap, which, instead of being absolute and set at a pre-determined royalty rate, is a default five percent maximum (not minimum) cumulative royalty rate for potential licensees per product category.[35] The royalty rate for each individual patent will differ for each of the licensees and this depends on the patent portfolio under each product category that the licensee has chosen.[36]

The concerns and challenges of the GSM experience were well perceived during the determination of the course of action for UMTS. European actors were especially wary of Qualcomm and expected the firm to demand high license fees, with some even fearing them to be in excess of 10%.[37] Subsequently, various attempts at developing licensing schemes failed, until 2004 and the establishment of the W-CDMA Patent Licensing Programme for UMTS FDD patents.[38] At the outset, seven licensors offered their patents as a bundle to prospective licensors, a number which decreased over time.[39]

The Development of LTE Patent Pools
The next stage in the process of innovation in the realm of telecommunications was the development of the Long Term Evolution (LTE) Standard, which while being essential to 4G technology has also seen application in the realm of 3G. Consequently, patent pools or similar structures have been developed in these areas. LTE patents are being viewed as among the most valuable intellectual property resource in the mobile telecommunications industry, with most operators around the world building LTE networks.[40]

As per in a study conducted in 2011, 23% of the patents about this technology were owned by L.G. Electronics, with Qualcomm coming in second with 21%. Motorola Mobility, InterDigital, Nokia and Samsung each owned 9%, China’s ZTE owned about 6%[41] and Nortel owned 4%, which were later sold to a consortium of Apple, EMC, Ericsson, Microsoft, Research in Motion (RIM) and Sony, after Nortel filed for bankruptcy in 2009.[42] Ericsson also independently owns 2% of the patent pool and RIM owns 1%.[43] However, another analysis[44] of IP databases conducted by ZTE in 2011 revealed differing results. As per this analysis, InterDigital was the leader, with its Patent Holdings arm controlling 13% and the Technology arm controlling 11% of LTE essential patents. Qualcomm controlled 13%, Nokia and Samsung 9% each, Ericsson controlled 8%, as did Huawei, ZTE controlled 7%, L.G. controlled 6% and NTT DoCoMo brought up the rear with 5%. The remaining 11% was held by various other firms.[45] It is to be realized that these studies have often come under criticism from different companies, with each of them eager to portray themselves as the market leader.[46] Setting aside criticism driven by corporate egos, the principle of it, that is, the difficulty in assessing and valuing patents cannot be disputed. Valuing patents is far from merely counting the number of patents owned by a company. The complications are especially evident when it comes to determining which of these patents are essential and which of them aren’t. Additionally, the worth of these patents varies depending on the existence or the absence of certain conditions, including transfer restrictions, cross licensing arrangements, ownership and market conditions.[47]

The aforesaid discussion reveals the complexity and the fragmentation of the LTE environment, which further underscored the need to have patent pools in this field. Although the need for a patent pool was realized in 2009-2010, given that the WCDMA patent pool had been met with very limited success,[48] industry watchers were reluctant to be optimistic. This was in part fuelled by the understanding of the attitude of dominant players, wherein they continued to believe that they could derive more monetary, cross licensing and litigation defence value if they did not pool their patents.[49]

The development of LTE patent pools can be traced back to 2009, and the response of Via Licensing¸ Sisvel and MPEG LA to a Request for Information on forming such a patent pool by the Next Generation Mobile Network Alliance (NGMN).[50] Sisvel’s proposal, which it subsequently made at a public conference in 2010 sought to demonstrate that patent pools could prevent excessive costs from royalty stacking.[51] Among various other examples, Roberto Dini, the founder of Sisvel suggested that if patents were to be licensed individually, for instance, 85 patents for MPEG video at 50 cents apiece would cost $42.50. As opposed to this, the patent pool charged $2.50.[52] In 2011, the NGMN reiterated its recommendation to all stakeholders in the mobile industry that were interested in developing patent pools to hasten their development process to avoid further delays in LTE licensing.[53] The NGMN also went on to state that it would be ideal if all the parties were to agree on a single patent pool that promoted reasonable royalties, offered certainty on the availability of the licenses for patents and created a framework for evaluation of their essentiality, where the value of the patents essential to the pool would be established by the industry.[54] These recommendations were not without their fair share of criticism, both, from industry watchers[55] and from vendors.[56] Notwithstanding these reservations, both, Sisvel[57] and Via Licensing have gone on to issue calls for patents for the purposes of creating patent pools in the LTE marketplace.

The Sisvel LTE Patent Pool materialized in late 2012, wherein licenses were offered under a portfolio of patents essential to LTE.[58] The pool includes patents owned by Cassidian, the China Academy of Telecommunication Technology, the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute, France Telecom, TDF, and KPN, in addition to some patents that had been originally filed by Nokia but were acquired by Sisvel in 2011.[59] The pool is also open to other organizations that have patents essential to LTE. At present, the current portfolio of these patents is available under standard terms and conditions. The running royalty rate is 0.99 Euros per device.[60]

Having promised a launch within a few months in June, 2012[61] Via Licensing has also developed its own LTE Patent Pool, with the initial companies in this pool being AT&T, Clearwire Corporation, DTVG Licensing, HP, KDDI Corporation, MTT DoCoMo, SK Telecom, Telecom Italia, Telefónica and ZTE.[62] Like Sisvel’s Patent Pool, this pool is also open to other organizations that believe they possess essential LTE patents, and they are encouraged to submit the same for evaluation.[63] The patent pool floated by Via leans heavily towards service providers, but some of the big players in the industry including Nokia, Ericsson, Huawei Technologies and Samsung Electronics are conspicuous by their absence.[64] This absence is felt even in Sisvel’s patent pool, with the reasoning being proposed[65] that these key patent holders may prefer private licensing and subsequent litigation over pooled resources in patent pools.[66] Understandably, the launch of the LTE Patent Pools has been met with approval by the NGMN[67] but given the nascent stages in which both of these pools find themselves, it would be premature to comment (without first observing for a few months) the likelihood of their success or failure and how they would play out against each other.

The TD-SCDMA and the TD-LTE
Reportedly, China has spent several billion dollars on the import of analog and GSM technology,[68] and the country’s mobile communications industry continues to be dominated by foreign players.[69] Therefore, in continuation of a purportedly growing trend[70] in the area of telecommunications as well, domestically developed systems are being preferred and developed over standardized technologies that enjoy strong patent protection outside China.[71] Besides the avoidance of paying royalties to foreigners, the idea is also to use China’s strong market presence and have more participants in China’s home grown technology.[72]

Time Divisional- Synchronous Code Division Multiple Access (TD-SCDMA), developed by the China Academy of Telecommunications Technology (CATT), in collaboration with Datang and Siemens[73] is a Chinese indigenously developed 3G technology standard developed by China to reduce its dependence on western standards.[74] Interestingly however, it has been reported that the Chinese hold core patent technology only about 7% whereas most of the rest of it is taken by other foreign organizations.[75] In 2000, an industry consortium, the TD-SCDMA forum was established. The participants were China Mobile, China Telecom, China Unicom, Huawei, Motorola, Nortel, and Siemens, with the objective of developing and supporting this technology. Government support was received in 2002, following which the TD-SCDMA Industry Alliance was founded by well known market players including Datang, SOUTEC, Holley, Huawei, LENOVO, ZTE, CEC and China Putian. There has also been the creation of various joint ventures with international giants such as Alcatel, Ericsson, Nokia, (erstwhile) Nortel, Philips, Samsung and Siemens have also been created.[76]

Information about the existence of patent pools in this technology has been hard to come by. One of the few to write about patent pools in his 2008 paper,[77] Dazheng Wang proposes patent pools as a solution to the problem of commercialization of TD-SCDMA. He suggests that the framework of this patent pool should be on the industry principles of fair, reasonable and non discriminatory licensing terms for essential patents, with the end result being one of increased innovation and competition and an overall increase in market presence. Interestingly, a few articles[78] on blog posts on the internet speak about the existence of patent pools and their apparent misuse[79] as well.

It is submitted that these inconsistencies regarding the division of patents between various patent holders, where the percentage of patents held by each company have been pegged differently,[80] and about the existence of a patent pool or not raise pressing concerns about the payment of royalties and how licensing works in such a situation. On a very basic level, in order to be able to pay royalties and enter into licensing agreements, the existence of an identified, non disputed patent holder would be the sine qua non, which seems to be missing in the case of patents for TD-SCDMA. This problem is only further compounded by the lack of clarity on the very existence of patent pools. Had there been specified patent pools, the issues of determination of essential patents and the setting of royalties and licensing fees would have been standardized, a situation that cannot be invoked, without dispute, in the present Chinese context.

It is further submitted that despite China being the world’s largest market for mobile communications, and its progress from a mere importer to a developer of some parts of technology,[81] the Chinese experiment with TD-SCDMA seems to have met with limited success, in comparison to what was envisaged. For instance, while an agency had forecast that the number of TD-SCDMA subscribers in 2010 would be 34 million, by April, 2010 there were only 8 million or (even lower) subscribers.[82] One of the reasons for preferring other standards, for instance, the W-CDMA is the number of handsets compatible with the same and the consequent variety that is available to the consumer. To illustrate, one could look at the figures from June, 2010. At this point of time China Unicom had 94 models for W-CDMA from twenty four manufacturers including nine foreign ones, whereas China Mobile had only twenty eight models that were compatible with TD-SCDMA.[83] Interestingly, if one were to measure popularity in terms of sheer numbers, TD-SCDMA would emerge the winner over W-CDMA by a couple of million subscribers, but if the growth rate were to be considered, W-CDMA would come out on top. While TD-SCDMA grew only by 24%, W-CDMA has grown at 32% monthly since the start of its service is October, 2009.[84]

China’s experiments with creating its home grown telecommunication standards have not stopped with the development of the TD-SCDMA, with the country being on track in the development of the TD-LTE. Reports suggest that although the systems are in ‘trial’ mode officially, the 4G spectrum situation remains uncertain.[85] It is submitted that although this is in the nascent stages as compared to the TD-SCDMA, the concerns expressed earlier about TD-SCDMA and the suggestions made therein for the technology to realise its full potential would be equally applicable in this scenario as well.

Therefore, in light of this discussion it would not be fallacious to conclude that while the TD-SCDMA, and now more recently the TD-LTE standard might still be in its nascent stages, on a fundamental level it seems to have not fulfilled the objectives with which it was developed, especially given that a sizeable portion of its patents continue to be owned by foreign corporations. In addition to the challenges of attracting subscribers, it would also need to streamline its system of patents, royalties and licensing, if it wants to have a truly global or even national presence. To this end perhaps patent pools structured along the lines of those being developed or in place for other mobile communication technologies might provide a viable solution meriting consideration.

Concluding Observations

One of the fundamental concerns that plague most downstream organizations in the mobile communications sector is the prevalence of high licensing fees that need to be paid on essential patents, the cost of which often trickles down to the customers. A study on the licensing arrangements prevalent at the moment[86] reveals that as of the moment, the result of royalty rate caps is that they save money for downstream manufacturers, but this is at the expense of upstream licensors. The most significant savers are the ones downstream with no IP to trade, and vertically integrated companies while losing some revenue, are able to save significantly more in reduced expenses.[87]

Therefore, it comes as no surprise that efforts at limiting aggregate licensing fees have been at the forefront over the past couple of years. It is in this scenario that patent pools have developed, with operators such as Via Licensing and Sisvel even promoting themselves as being able to put together patent pools that would greatly limit licensing fees.[88] However, some owners of intellectual property continue to find bilateral licensing and cross licensing to be more profitable as opposed to patent pools.

One of the key concerns when it comes to fore when dealing with how patent pools are structured is about the distribution of income received from royalties within the members of the pool, which ties in with the bigger question of classifying patents as essential and non essential. More often than not, patent pools also have to grapple with the problem of members having conflicting interests. For instance, manufacturers have the incentive to cap aggregate royalties of certain essential patents that they would use in manufacturing, in order to reduce their licensing costs. However, these manufacturers could have also brought their own essential patents to the pool, perhaps of a new way of doing things, and would certainly be averse of having caps imposed on these royalties.

One of the key other considerations that patent pools need to take into account include the royalty rates affixed. In an interview some time ago, the founder of Sisvel, went on to state that while affixing these royalty rates, there could be no discrimination against licensees, since that would be a sure fire way of ensuring the collapse of the patent pool.[89] Additionally, patent pools also need to account for the difference in regulatory mechanism and their execution that exists across jurisdictions. For instance, customs officials in France pay a lot more attention to counterfeit goods than they would to patent infringing products, whereas those in Germany would have a keen eye on the latter.[90]

Various other concerns have also been identified with regard to patent pools over time. One of these is that they could potentially eliminate competition that comes from outside of patent pools.[91]

Additionally, patent pools are not all inclusive, since participation is entirely voluntary. Therefore, patent pools would not even be reasonably expected to cover all essential patents required to make a standardised product. This problem is rendered even more complex as a result of the presence of multiple patent pools around the same technology, as in the case of DVDs and more recently, LTE technology.

In sum, while portfolio cross licenses and patent pools can be helpful in resolving issues created by patent thickets by reducing transaction costs for licensees, while preserving to a definitive extent financial incentives for inventors to commercialize their existing inventions and undertake new research, the significant shortcomings of these pools also need to be taken into account before they can be heralded as the solution to problems presented by complex patent landscapes. While voluntary patent pools might have proved to be beneficial in some respects, the imposition of patent pools would be a fallacious approach to undertake.

[1]. Hui Yan, The 3G Standard Setting Strategy and Indigenous Innovation Policy in China: Is TD-SCDMA a Flagship?, DRUID Working Paper No 07-01, available at http://www2.druid.dk/conferences/viewpaper.php?id=1454&cf=9 (last accessed 07 12 2012)

[2]. Josh Lerner and Jean Tirole, Efficient Patent Pools, 4 Am. Econ. Rev. 691, 691 (2004)

[3]. Patent Pools- Some Not So Frequently Answered Questions, available at http://blog.patentology.com.au/2012/11/patent-pools-some-not-so-frequently.html (last accessed 10 December, 2012)

[4]. Id.

[5]. Id.

[6]. Philip B. Nelson, Patent Pools: An Economic Assessment of Current Law and Policy, Rutgers Law Journal, Volume 38:539, 559 (2007)

[7].

[8]. Roger B. Andewelt, Analysis of Patent Pools Under the Antitrust Laws, 53 ANTITRUST L.J. 611, 611 (1984).

[9]. Philips has been known to have been the licensing agency for patent pools where it was a member

[10]. Supra note 3

[11]. Supra note 3

[12]. Supra note 3

[13]. Supra note 3

[14]. Supra note 3

[15]. Supra note 3

[16]. Supra note 3

[17]. Rudi Bekkers et. al., Patent Pools and Non Assertion Agreements: Coordination Mechanisms for Multi Party IPR Holders in Standardization, available at http://www-i4.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Interest/EASST_Bekkers_Iversen_Blind.pdf 22 (last accessed 09 December, 2012)

[18]. Id.

[19]. Id.

[20]. Id.

[21]. Supra note 17 at 23.

[22]. Supra note 17 at 23.

[23]. Keith Mallinson, Fixing IP Prices with Royalty Rate Caps and Patent Pools, available at http://ipfinance.blogspot.in/2011/07/fixing-ip-prices-with-royalty-rate-caps.html (last accessed 10 December, 2012)

[24]. Id. See Appendix 1 for a graphical representation of declared intellectual property assets in 2009.

[25]. Supra note 17 at 25

[26]. Supra note 17 at 27

[27]. Supra note 17 at 27

[28]. Supra note 17 at 28

[29]. Dessy Choumelova, Competition Law Analysis of Patent Licensing Agreements- the Particular Case of 3G3P, available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/cpn/2003_1_41.pdf- 41 (last accessed 10 December, 2012)

[30]. Id.

[31]. Id.

[32]. Id.

[33]. Id at 42.

[34]. Id at 42.

[35]. Id at 42-43.

[36]. Id at 43.

[37]. Supra note 17 at 29.

[38]. Supra note 17 at 39.

[39]. Supra note 17 at 39.

[40]. Elizabeth Woyke, Identifying the Tech Leaders in LTE Wireless Patents, available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabethwoyke/2011/09/21/identifying-the-tech-leaders-in-lte-wireless-patents/ (last accessed 08 December, 2012)

[41]. Id.

[42]. Id.

[43]. Id.

[44]. Caroline Gabriel, ZTE Claims 7% of LTE Essential Patents, available at http://www.rethink-wireless.com/2011/01/11/zte-claims-7-lte-essential-patents.htm (last accessed 09 December, 2012)

[45]. Id.

[46]. Id.

[47]. Supra note 40.

[48]. Keith Mallinson, Mallinson: Uncertain Futures in LTE Patent Pool Licensing, available at http://www.fiercewireless.com/europe/story/mallinson-uncertain-outlook-patent-pool-licensing/2010-08-25 (last accessed 10 December, 2012)

[49]. Id.

[50]. Id.

[51]. Id.

[52]. Id.

[53]. NGMN Board Recommendation on LTE Patent Pool, available at http://4g-portal.com/ngmn-board-recommendation-on-lte-patent-pool (last accessed 10 December, 2012)

[54]. Id.

[55]. Caroline Gabriel, NGMN’s Calls for an LTE Patent Pool Will be Futile in the Current IPR Climate, available at http://www.4gtrends.com/articles/53511/ngmns-calls-for-an-lte-patent-pool-will-be-futile-/ (last accessed 11 December, 2012)

[56]. Michelle Donegan, Vendors Balk at LTE Patent Pool Proposal, available at http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=212362 (last accessed 11 December, 2012).

[57]. SISVEL: Patent Pool for 3G Long Term Evolution (LTE), available at http://www.thefreelibrary.com/SISVEL%3A+Patent+Pool+for+3G+Long+Term+Evolution+(LTE).-a0199544458 (last accessed 08 December, 2012)

[58]. LTE Patent Pool from Sisvel, available at http://4g-portal.com/lte-patent-pool-from-sisvel (last accessed 09 December, 2012)

[59]. Id.

[60]. Id.

[61]. Mike Dano, Via Promises LTE Patent Pool Launch Within Months, available at http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/licensing-promises-lte-patent-pool-launch-within-months/2012-06-15 (last accessed 07 December, 2012)

[62]. LTE Patent Pool Available Through Via’s Licensing Program, available at http://4g-portal.com/lte-patent-pool-available-through-vias-licensing-program (last accessed 10 December, 2012).

[63]. Id.

[64]. Stephen Lawson, Lte Patent Pool Brings Together Technologies From At&T, Zte, Hp And Others, available at http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9232043/LTE_patent_pool_brings_together_technologies_from_AT_amp_T_ZTE_HP_and_others (last accessed 09 December, 2012)

[65]. Peter White, Sisvel LTE Patent Pool Emerges After All- Majors Still Hold Back from Committing, available at http://www.rethink-wireless.com/2012/11/05/sisvel-lte-patent-pool-emerges-all-majors-hold-committing.htm (last accessed 09 December, 2012)

[66]. Shankar Pandiath, Sisvel Launches Patent Pool for 3G Long Term Evolution (LTE), available at http://next-generation-communications.tmcnet.com/topics/nextgen-voice/articles/314957-sisvel-launches-patent-pool-3g-long-term-evolution.htm (last accessed 09 December, 2012).

[67].NGMN Board Welcomes Launch of LTE Patent Pool, available at http://4g-portal.com/ngmn-board-welcomes-launch-of-lte-patent-pool (last accessed 09 December, 2012).

[68]. ELSPETH THOMSON AND JON SIGURDSON (EDS.), CHINA’S SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SECTOR AND THE FORCES OF GLOBALIZATION 17 (2008, World Scientific Publishing Company, Singapore).

[69]. Cong Cao, Challenges for Technological Development in China’s Industry, available at http://chinaperspectives.revues.org/924 (last accessed 11 December, 2012)

[70]. Peter Zura, China Launches TD-SCDMA Telecom Standard¸ available at http://271patent.blogspot.in/2006/01/china-launches-td-scdma-telecom.html (last accessed 10 December, 2012)

[71]. Id.

[72]. Id.

[73]. TD-SCDMA (time division synchronous code division multiple access), available at http://searchmobilecomputing.techtarget.com/definition/TD-SCDMA (last accessed 07 December, 2012).

[74]. SHAHD AKHTAR AND PATRICIA ARINTO (EDS.), DIGITAL REVIEW OF ASIA PACIFIC : 2009-2010 8 (2010, Sage Publications, New Delhi).

[75]. Supra note 1 at 2. See Appendix 2 for the breakup of patent holding. However, see details on Infra note 78 for a contradictory view, wherein China claims to own 30% of all TD-SCDMA patents.

[76]. Pierre Vialle, On the relevance of Indigenous Standard Setting Policy: the Case of TD-SCDMA in China, 2^nd International Conference on Economics, Trade and Development, (2012) 36 IPEDR 184-185 (IACSIT Press, Singapore).

[77]. Dazheng Wang, Patent Pool: A Solution to the Problem of TD-SCDMA’s Commercialization, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5076744&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F5076660%2F5076661%2F05076744.pdf%3Farnumber%3D5076744 (last accessed 11 December, 2012).

[78]. China Owns 30% of TD-SCDMA Related Patents, available at http://www.cn-c114.net/582/a310685.html (last accessed 11 December, 2012).

[79]. The Legal Regulation on Patent Pool Misuse, available at http://www.socpaper.com/the-legal-regulation-on-patent-pool-misuse.html (last accessed 11 December, 2012).

[80]. Supra notes 75 and 78.

[81]. Tomoo Marukawa, Chinese Innovations in Mobile Telecommunications: Third Generation vs. “Guerrilla Handsets”, Paper presented at the IGCC Conference: Chinese Approaches to National Innovation, La Jolla, California, June 28-29, 2010 at 1.

[82]. Id at 8.

[83]. Id at 9.

[84]. Id at 9.

[85]. China to Speed Up TD-LTE Process, available at http://www.tdscdma-forum.org/en/news/see.asp?id=11998&uptime=2012-11-29 (last accessed 08 December, 2012)

[86]. Supra note 23.

[87]. Id.

[88]. Supra note 23.

[89]. Sisvel’s Patent Strategy, available at http://www.managingip.com/Article/2400452/Sisvels-patent-strategy.html (last accessed 12 December, 2012).

[90]. Id.

[91]. Supra note 23.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/patent-pools

Pervasive Technologies: Access to Knowledge in the Marketplace

praskrishna — 2012-09-25T04:47:36Z

Pervasive technologies (mass-market networked communication technologies) are transforming the way in which people across the world access knowledge media. The prices of mobile phones and netbooks have plummeted, even as penetration and use have reached near-ubiquitous levels. In many ways, these commercial devices are fulfilling the promise that socially beneficial initiatives like One Laptop Per Child were never able to fully deliver on.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/pervasive-technologies-research-proposal.pdf

Pervasive Technologies Project Working Document Series: Literature Review on IPR in Mobile app development

sinha — 2015-08-31T13:48:02Z

This post is literature survey of material exploring and analysing the role of Application Platforms in the Mobile Applications Development ecosystem, albeit from an intellectual property perspective. The document is a work in progress.

1. What are the decisions developers are making within their practice in terms of location of their enterprise and clients, scale of audience, funding, business models and mobile apps marketplace (app stores)? Who is the primary actor in the mobile applications development cycle in India?

1.1. Is the mobile apps marketplace organically developing into a Bazaar model, or a Cathedral model?

1.2. What are the contractual terms between the enterprise and the employee? What is the typical nature of agreements in the mobile apps development industry between enterprise- employee and enterprise- client?

The role of Mobile application developers (“developers”) is critical in the app market, especially when such markets are regarded as the key entry and dissemination point for mobile content. Developers are seen as innovation engines and the fastest route to innovation, so understanding factors that attract and retain third party mobile application developers is of importance to mobile platform providers in order to survive.

Who are the primary actors in the mobile applications development cycle in India?

This chapter of the Pervasive Technologies Project (“Project”) aims to study developers who are key contributors to the mobile applications space within India; and the problems, those being faced by them as they attempt to navigate an emerging and ambiguous ecosystem. The results of our qualitative research give us insight into the characteristics of this new tribe. A majority of the developers do not own the products they innovate and instead assign ownership of their IP over to their clients. Innovating for the purpose of creating and retaining ownership is a key motivation and is reflected in the tendency of developers to move away from the services sector to develop their own products.[1]

As one developer puts it, “unless you're a 1000 man enterprise, there's no economic benefit in services; as competition has driven pricing so low, everyone's struggling to deliver $12-14 per hour.”

Every startup in mobile development, especially, is doing services to stay afloat and would like to move toward a product model.

Further, IAMAI conducted a survey[2] in 2013 and the report presents an analysis in four sections:

a) Who? The App Developer in India

b) What? The Preference of Users and Developers in India

c) Why? The Business of Apps in India

d) How? The Future of Apps in India

The Report states:

“The vast majority of app developers in India are male. In their survey of 454 developers, only 35 respondents were female reflecting the gender bias. On the demand side 80 percent of smartphone users in India are male reinforcing the male dominance. Geographically the respondents were all based in India except one developer of Indian origin residing in Malaysia. The well known and established IT cities in India are attractive for app developers because they provide with easy access to infrastructure, skill and a ready market for products. The survey shows the concentration of app developers in the cities of Bangalore, Mumbai, Delhi NCR, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad. A larger percentage of developers in such IT cities make apps on a full-time basis as compared to developers in other cities. The survey data also shows that Bangalore, Mumbai and NCR have the maximum number of companies (organized business operations) engaged in app development. Cities like Ahmedabad, Hyderabad and Chennai host many small teams of app developersas well as self-employed app professionals. In most of the other cities such as Bhubaneshwar, Cochin, Coimbatore, Gandhinagar and Kota, app development is done primarily on a part-time basis and is not the primary source of income. This could be the result of limited monetization options that make app development an unsustainable livelihood for many.

The popularity of international apps was evident in the survey data. The average download of ‘Indian’ apps was very low. Only 14 of the 454 developers has crossed the hundred thousand download mark, of which only 5 surpassed the one million milestone. These numbers do not pertain to a single app, but to the cumulative number of downloads across all the apps created by each developer, supporting the thesis of low visibility of apps developed domestically.

In their sample of 454 developers, entertainment apps including gaming and social networking are the dominant categories reflecting demand side preference. Utilities, health and education are the other important categories. The survey also below provided the number of apps developed under each category. The list does not include lifestyle and enterprise apps which are exceptions. One forceful result of their survey is the focus of app developers on foreign app demand in preference to producing locally-relevant content - as the latter is less profitable. Each respondent in their sample had developed an average of 38 apps. Of these 13 have developed 100 or more apps and these are the larger professional app companies. After excluding extreme values, the average number of apps developed by each respondent fell to 17.

Skewed revenue sharing models biased against content providers was one of the main reasons why Indian app developers focus on international app stores such as Apple App Store or Google PlayStore that offer a flat 70 percent of the total revenue to developers. This adversely affected development of India-specific apps and even popular apps such as Saavn and Zomato have expanded abroad because of this very reason.

Survey results indicated an Android dominated future for the app economy in India for two apparent reasons. One, Android devices are more affordable and two, the Android ecosystem is open allowing OEMs such as Samsung and HTC to manufacture mobile devices that use the Android OS. The drawback turns out to be the resulting fragmentation in screen sizes, resolution limits and hardware traits. Because of this, “developing apps that work across the whole range of Android devices can be extremely challenging and time-consuming.” Moreover, Indian app developers need to recognise the existence of an active market for used phones and thus the appeal of ‘backward compatibility’ i.e. an app that can work across old devices as well as new ones and also function across both old and new versions of operating systems will stand a better chance of success.

On the whole, app development was not considered to be a remunerative business opportunity. 17 percent of respondents who answered the question on choice of revenue model indicated that they did not have a specific revenue generation plan. While some developers are engaged in contractual development, there are few developers who self finance their project and do not actively market or promote their app. The business of app development in India seems to be at a stage in which it could be characterised as one based on a ‘hit and trial’ philosophy. Self financing is common in the industry. Only 7 and 13 developers approached banks or venture capitalists for financing. Funding an app developer was not an investor’s primary choice. Recognising the market failure and the utility of apps, the Department of Electronics and IT and Department of Telecommunication have both instituted funds to encourage mobile technology ventures

and app development in India.[3] One can argue on the efficacy of the use of limited public resources for app development, but not the fact that app development in India needs a boost. The industry is still very young and ‘unorganized’ and is largely dependent on own and informal sources for financing. The study presents presents the source of financing for app developers.”

Understanding of IP

There is a lack of understanding of IP amongst the developers. During the course of interviews, IP was often thought of as mere content or code. There was also confusion between the terms IP and IPR. The few developers who understood the nuances of IP better, voiced a need for the developer community to deepen their understanding of what parts of their work are IP. Samuel Mani, Founding Partner of Mani Chengappa & Mathur, stressed that developers should recognize the value within not just the product or software itself, but the background business processes. According to Mani, the execution of the idea is the true source of innovation; how one accesses the market, and maybe who the market is as well.[4]

The IAMAI report[5] had some observations on the impact of IP on the apps industry. According to the report, “since the industry thrived on innovation, protection of intellectual property was important to developers. The balance between protection and sharing of innovation was part of a larger and often tendentious debate on open source versus proprietary software development.[6] The survey did not attempt to deconstruct that debate; merely reported that 70 percent of respondents were of the view that intellectual property protection was a concern for app developers. However, not all had taken steps to protect intellectual property. The lack of seriousness could be associated with poor revenue potential from apps. Among those who had, some obtained copyrights/patents, while others worked with individual checks on in-app piracy using code morphing, copy protection, server–based checks, or both etc (The study provides data on different IP protection measures).”

Nature of their clients

Out-sourced 'mobile app services' is marginal as a business model here in India.[7]

Ownership of their product/service:

Often, the lack in understanding can be traced to the developers working in isolation from the legalities involved in assigning the product to the client. Majority of those interviewed developed mobile app products for clients, and in turn assigned ownership of their products to their clients. As previously mentioned, they commonly shared an interest in leaving the services sector to create products of their own, with some of them already having made the transition within their business model.[8]

Contractual clauses most important to mobile app developers: Delving deeper into the aspect of assigning ownership to clients, the most common practice is for developers to enter into a work-for-hire agreement with the client. Typically, a work-for-hire agreement mandates that if a worker is paid to carry out a particular project, whatever is created within the project belongs to the client.[9]

For startups where team players are small in number, it is likely that all will have access to any contract agreements entered into with clients. For larger corporate software developer firms, there may be a specialized department for legal-related matters. In such cases, the mobile app developers themselves would seldom lay eyes on the legalese of contracts, for the primary reason being that it doesn't concern them. Instead, the terms of agreement more familiar to them would be those that they obliged to upon working for their employer. The interviews revealed that the importance of contract agreements was actually underestimated in the country.[10]

Within a work-for-hire agreement, it is commonplace for developers to enter into restrictive agreements that obstruct the freedoms of what they can do with the code created for the client. Problematic areas proved to be those related to the time periods in which the developer was not allowed to take up future work for competing clients (i.e. the non-compete clause), or could not talk about their work for the client at all (the “quiet period”).[11]

Developers are unable to license their work to other interested clients when one client retains ownership. “Clients typically do not want a perpetual license, but complete ownership”, says a website developer. He further explains that, “this means they could make a derivative work or use it for another project. Depending on how bad we want the project, we'll work out some middle ground.” But it does not seem to be so easy for he and his SME to do so: “The thing about contracts is it’s all about a sort of differential bargaining power that the two parties have... you’ll have very little control about what happens once you’ve got paid.”[12]

To have any sort of bargaining power within a work-for-hire arrangement requires a lot of time for negotiating, and the space for communication to begin with. In many cases, contracts may not even be introduced into a work agreement, leaving a lot of intricacies to the unknown.

The problems are further compounded by contract illiteracy, more so in second tier cities.[13]

2. What is the nature of innovation emerging from the mobile app industry? What is the awareness of the "mobile applications developer and its enterprise on rules concerning code, content and design? How does re-use and sharing of code, content and design occur in the mobile application developer ecosystem ? What is the perceived impact of the Indian IPR regime on the aforementioned aspects? Finally, do the emerging trends in re-use and sharing of code run afoul of Indian IP law?

There is a marked shift towards using open source software amongst developers. According to a Gartner study, most software makers will have some open source applications or code in their portfolio by 2016. The study also reaches the conclusion that 99% of Forbes’ Global 2000 companies will be using some form of open source software.[14]

Awareness

The interviews revealed different personal understandings of the meaning of IP. The most common responses were the following[15]:

A : When questioned about IP to developers, they did not know what it meant, because it didn’t have anything to do with what they were doing.

B : Developers often did not know what part of their app was IP... there is was gap in understanding with respect to IP.

For the most part, it seems, IP was considered to refer to content or code across interviews, and was even confused at one point with IPR (IP Rights) within a response referring to an SME's trademark and pending application.

For those who appeared to be better versed in matters related to IP, they emphasised on the need for developers to be better acquainted with what parts of their work are IP. One interviewee stressed on the importance of developers to recognize the value of background business processes, apart from software and the product itself. [16]

In certain cases, it took $1 million in sales for a medium-sized software development enterprise to start paying attention to IP. The enterprise tried to obtain patent protection for their application, but the effort turned out to be futile.[17]

Protection of work (Speaks to awareness also)

When asked, those interviewed responded with a variance in answers. Some simply stated that their work is not protected, while a few mentioned that they acquired trademark or intend to apply for trademark protection. One interviewee had a patent pending in India and the US, as well. In many conversations, developers mentioned that their code for their apps is under open source licenses, and a couple others entailed sharing that the content is under creative commons licenses, “individual licenses,” or joint copyright. Additionally, within one interview, one mentioned the use of encryption tools as a technical means of protection for their work.[18]

“The concept of securing IP is relatively new within the Indian context... it becomes a question of priority between innovation and protection" — Aravind Krishnaswamy, Levitum.

Of the developers interviewed, many exhibited some sort of confusion or misunderstanding related to the protection of their works by means of intellectual property rights (IPR). Those interviewed seemed to either express an interest to acquire IPR in the future for their products in the forms of patent or trademark protection, or expressed their appreciation for openness source licensing—or both! Beneath these immediate responses, however, many repeated patterns, as well as contradictions, are revealed. Conversations that followed within these interviewed entailed the opportunity to hear from personal experiences and opinions on different areas within their practice intersecting IPR.[19]

Across interviews conducted, one particular observation entailed the tendency for developers to have worked in the past for corporate employers that have dealt with cases of infringement or have acquired IP protection. Almost half of those interviewed shared the fact that they worked for a corporate employer and became better familiar with different notions of intellectual property through that experience. It may not be too far-fetched to suggest, then, that for the developer the idea of acquiring IPR protection is one that may be reinforced from previous employers or other successful development companies with IPR of their own.[20]

Impact of law & reasons for IPR Protection

One would assume that if a startup was bootstrapped with minimal cash flow, then it would place a low priority on getting IP protection for its products. Aravind Krishnaswamy of startup, Levitum, also stated that “the concept of securing IP was relatively new within the Indian context.” [21]

Yet, many developers who were interviewed did express an interest in IPR. The main concerns developers believed IP protection would address, were proving ownership over their work or preventing problems in the future. One developer's commented on how the mobile app market is a “new and potentially volatile area for software development.” For this reason, it was imperative that he and his team attempted to avoid trouble in the future, and ensure that they going about mobile app development the right and moral way.[22]

Within another interview, developer, John Paul of mobile app SME, Plackal, explained his motives for seeking to acquire patent protection, the application for which back then was pending in India and the US: "For us, applying for a patent is primarily defensive. And if it does get infringed upon, it would give us a good opportunity to generate revenue from it." For the company's trademark, they sought to be able to enforce their ownership over their product's brand: “As a precautionary, we've trademarked the app so that should there be a situation where the app is pirated, we can claim ownership for that app.”[23]

Do the emerging trends run afoul of Indian law?

Yes. This was evident from the legal practices of mobile app developers and the resulting cases of infringement.

Some instances of infringement (limited to Mobile app content (i.e. logos, pictures, etc.)) are[24]:

• Pirated apps in app stores

• “Dummy apps” or imitations of another's app

• Breaching app stores user agreement

• Violation of License agreements of code created by another

• Violation of Open source licenses

• Breaching of terms of agreement for by commissioning clients

• Breaching of terms of agreement for by those hired

Some of the developers indicated that they weren't a fish big enough to be pursued for infringement. “The big companies do not go after small developers; it depends on how much money they're making.” said a developer. He added,“Patent lawsuits can cost something like millions of dollars, so unless they're going to get more back, they wouldn't go through the trouble of doing so... but that is true even in the US.”

Some added that others who may have been apparently copying you, may have been working on the same content independently. Corporate players are in non-compliance knowingly than not, whereas more SMEs infringe upon others without being aware that they are. Just as well, the degree to which infringement takes place may differ between the two types of industry players: “At the corporate level, where they know they are not in compliance, the degree of non-compliance might be very small or specific, but it still exists.” On the other hand, for startup developers, a substantial amount of their code may not comply with the licenses and agreements they are obliged to—something that could pose problems for them later down the road if left unfixed. [25]

3. The apps marketplace is extremely important since they are the gatekeepers enabling access to apps. What is the nature of the apps marketplace? What are the limitations associated with it ? How do the existing regulatory models intersect with this relatively new marketplace? What is the enforcement carried out by these app stores in terms of IP?

“The app platform is a gatekeeper which provides the consumer and developer a virtual space to buy and sell products (mobile apps). What is the nature of the app platform? What are the limitations associated with it?

An app dealing in pirated content or infringing intellectual property faces the risk of getting barred by the app platform. What is the enforcement carried out by app platforms to protect intellectual property?”

Firstly, what is an app platform?

Iansteti and Levien[26] state that at the core of each innovation network is a focal organization known as platform owner (or keystone) that provides the platform to facilitate contribution by other members in the network.

Hagiu[27] defines a platform as a product, service or technology that provides a foundation for other parties to develop complementary products.

Specifically, I Kouris[28] defines an app platform as a special kind of electronic market which enable software developers to distribute their software applications(apps) among users of mobile devices like smartphones or tablets. An app platform owner dictates the entire infrastructure(like user interface, server space, etc.) and determines the rules for the interaction between the developers and users. They usually provide information about apps and developers and serve as a trusted third party by controlling app quality. Fransman M[29] characterised the app platform as an 'innovation ecosystem incorporating app developers effectively.'

Innovation can happen within the enterprise, or can take a more open route and benefit from external innovation. In order to gain the benefit of external innovation, platform owners must open their platforms up beyond their internal base of developers and provide resources to third party developers.[30]

What is the platform concept in software?

Broadly, Noori[31], discusses the issues about the platform concept in software and attempts to address the subject of platform strategy. Tsai, Phal & Robert[32] further the discussion by stating principles for an effective platform strategy.

In mobile ecosystems building a developer community is one of the niches to attract the developers to join the ecosystem. However, health can mean differing things for different ecosystem members. In order to stimulate innovation[33] the keystone company is often forced to relinquish much of their control over the platform to the development community. This involves a careful balancing act in relinquishing enough control to create a healthy environment for developers, and not stifling innovation while retaining a necessary and desired degree of control.[34]

Baskin[35] examines the problems concerning software patent under the mobile applications platform environment. The scope of the analysis is limited to two mobile applications platforms: Apple's iOS and Google's Android. The analysis throws light on the problems of innovation in software systems like iOS and Android. The note also proposes several changes to both antitrust and patent laws that will make it more difficult for established market players to prevent new competitors from entering high tech markets, thereby promoting greater openness and innovation. The part on software patents discusses the effects of enforcement of patent rights on open and closed systems. The note observes that the US Federal Circuit's decisions (Fonar Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., io7 F.3d 1543, 1549 (Fed. Cir. 1997)) have severely curtailed both the enablement and best mode requirements for successful software patents., thereby limiting the disclosure and preventing many of the invention's useful elements from reaching the public domain. Patentability issues have affected open systems such as Android more than Apple, owing to a greater dependency on third parties to run android systems, leading to more patent infringement issues. It recommends, that, intellectual property law should promote open systems above patent protection in high tech fields, allow reverse engineering of software and introduce an 'independent invention' defence in the law for innovators.

A certain paper addresses rejection of apps in the AppStore on three grounds: rejection on content grounds (including some competition-driven restrictions), rejection on development grounds, and the regulation of transactions.

Apple's and Google's foray into building a mobile development platform

Coming from the music and personal computer industry, Apple disrupted the mobile industry by making its mobile development platform available to third party developers and eliminating the barriers between those developers and customers. The main goal of Apple in the mobile world is to increase the cross-sales of its high-margin products by providing a continuous experience roaming (iPhone, iPad, Mac, and Apple TV) using complements such as mobile applications, content, services, and accessories.[36] Google, on the other hand, is an online advertising company which provides an open source mobile operating system, in the shape of Android, on which mobile handset manufacturers can develop smartphones without paying software licensing fees. By commoditizing mobile device production under its unique governance structure and building a large developer community, Google secured a means of reducing the barriers to new users accessing their advertising through smartphones. Microsoft through its Windows Phone is the most recent addition to the leading mobile platform providers. Its motivations lie in trying to protect its core business of software licensing which has been disrupted by falling PC sales linked to the emergence of mobile technology and free cloud technology services provided by companies such as Google which have impacted respectively on its licensing fees for Windows OS and Microsoft Office[37].

Luis H Hestres[38] analyzes Apple’s guidelines and approval process on the App Store, discusses content-based rejections of apps, and outlines the consequences of this process for developers’ and consumers’ freedom of expression. It outlines a set of principles to ensure “app-neutrality” whilie ensuring device quality and safety. The article illustrates challenges faced by app developers working on the iOS platform. Criticisms have come forth about Apple's arbitrary and opaque review process. Apple has a rejection rate of 30% of the 26,000 apps submitted to the app store each week[39]. Van Grove[40] comments that the ambiguity, opaqueness, and susceptibility to outside pressures that seems to characterize Apple’s approval process do a disservice to a democratic online culture. With more than 400 million iOS devices sold worldwide since 2007[41], Apple’s devices and app store have become important online intermediaries for Internet users. The article proposes a few basic guidelines, anchored on widely accepted international laws and treaties, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Statistics

A Report[42] presents us with some important insights into the growth of Google Play. Following are the highlights of the report: There are now well over 1 million apps available on Google Play App downloads and revenue from Google Play increased dramatically over the past year; Markets such as Brazil, Russia, Mexico, Turkey and Indonesia are driving growth in app downloads from Google Play; Google Play is experiencing rapid expansion of monetization in established markets such as Japan, the United States and South Korea; Games played a major role in the acceleration of Google Play revenue growth, but almost all app categories experienced expansion and accounted for almost 90% of revenue in Q1 2014; The freemium business model advanced its domination of Google Play app revenue, and represents a growing proportion of downloads; Asian markets lead the way in generating freemium revenue. Another report8 reiterates the explosion of gaming apps.

4. How does Indian copyright law and patent law apply to the mobile applications development ecosystem, in respect of the various business models operating in the industry?

4.1. The patent regime is grounded on a laboratory model of innovation. What does the niche mobile applications development industry (working on a micro-creativity model of innovation) require differently from the patent regime to foster growth?

4.2. Similarly, copyright law has a distinct design for digital objects. Examine the design and its suitability to regulate a mobile application.

A. The interviews reveal a dichotomy existing in the mobile app developer space. While some developers argued for strong IPR protections, several of app developers opposed strict IPR protection (patents, especially) and advocated use of open source software.[43]

Open source for future protection (Applicable as literature to Research question 2)

Sometimes developers license for community values primarily, however, the assumption is that dominant reason is to retain the ability to use their own work across clients. A designer from a services enterprise gave a different reason for doing so: to guarantee their ability to use their work again. “Since we use a bunch of templates and things like that, those we license using a non-exclusive license, because we reuse those elements on different bits of code in different projects,” he explains, “so there are bits of it which is used over multiple projects and there are stuff that is built exclusively for the client.”[44]

Here one can gather some insight, that perhaps developers do not necessarily license for community values primarily, but for the ability to use their own work across clients. That being said, we begin to wonder what the possibility that open source code may serve as a loophole for work-for-hire contracts, which require the developer to assign all written intellectual property to whoever is commissioning the project. If the code happened to “already be available by open source,” a developer may still be honouring any restrictive agreements with clients, and ensuring their ability to use their code in this future again.[45]

As a developer suggests, that startups should first and foremost protect themselves by making wiser choices related to code in order to prevent being litigated against by others—such as using an open source equivalent to a piece of code that one does not have the rights to, or instead putting the extra time in to develop it from scratch.[46]

Of those who expressed an interest in the open source movement, not all had said that their products were to be open licensed as well. One developer explicitly stated: “I like the idea of open source, and building upon others' work...but our app is not open source, it's proprietary.” It may be a given, then, that all or most developers within our interview sample rely on open source code within their practice, but not all may contribute their resulting product's source code back.[47]

Vivek Durai, from Humble Paper said that despite the fact that “open source has really taken route... on the smaller levels, people will come to a point when philosophies begin to change the moment you start seeing commercial.”[48]

B. A certain paper[49] examines from various angles the complex relationship between intellectual-property rights and technological innovation. Following are the conclusions:

1) Intellectual property rights are most likely to foster innovation when the following conditions converge in a particular industry: (a) high research-and-development costs; (b) a high degree of uncertainty concerning whether specific lines of research will prove fruitful; (c) the content of technological advances can be ascertained easily by competitors through “reverse engineering”; and (d) technological advances can be mimicked by competitors rapidly and inexpensively.

2) The likelihood that intellectual-property rights will impede more than stimulate innovation increases as more and more of the following factors obtain in a particular field: (a) trade-secret protection or lead-time advantages reduce the ability of competitors to take advantage of technological advances; (b) innovation in the field tends to be highly cumulative; (c) researchers in the field are motivated primarily by non-monetary incentives; (d) the field is characterized by strong network externalities. The last three of these circumstances were all present during the development of the technical infrastructure of the Internet; it is thus not surprising that that development proceeded rapidly and effectively with little reliance upon intellectual-property systems.

3) The following techniques may be employed to mitigate the economic side-effects of intellectual-property systems: (a) compulsory licenses; (b) facilitation of price discrimination; (c) strict enforcement of the “utility” requirement; (d) encouragement of appropriate cross-licensing agreements (provided that cartel behavior can be simultaneously discouraged); (e) narrow interpretations of “similarity”; (f) strict enforcement of “enablement” and “best-mode” requirements; and (g) the affirmative defenses of patent and copyright misuse.

4) In contexts in which reliance upon these mitigating devices is not feasible, the following alternative ways of solving the public-goods problem may be superior to intellectual-property rights as ways of stimulating innovation:government research; government funding for private research; or post-hoc government rewards for private technological advances.

C. In a paper[50], the authors study the determinants of patent quality and volume of patent applications when inventors care about perceived patent quality. They analyze the effects of various policy reforms, specifically, a proposal to establish a two‐tiered patent system. In the two‐tiered system, applicants can choose between a regular patent and a more costly, possibly more thoroughly examined, ‘gold‐plate’ patent. Introducing a second patent‐tier can reduce patent applications, reduce the incidence of bad patents, and sometimes increase social welfare. The gold‐plate tier attracts inventors with high ex‐ante probability of validity, but not necessarily applicants with innovations of high economic value.

D. Copyrights related to apps are still being hashed out in the courts. Oracle, for example, sued Google[51] for copyright infringement regarding the structure of Java APIs in its Android operating system[52], and the case was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

E. Policy Levers in Patent Law[53]

The paper argues that some industries should be the subject of patent tailoring – which can make them illustrative of certain policy levers. Use of obviousness and disclosure doctrines to modulate the scope and frequency of patents, as might be necessary where anti-commons to patent thicket theories are applicable.

Nature of software vis-a-vis biological/chemical inventions

Software inventions tend to have a quick, cheap, and fairly straightforward post- invention development cycle. Most of the work in software development occurs in the initial coding, not in development or production. The lead time to market in the software industry tends to be short. Because innovation is less uncertain in software than in industries like biotechnology, Merges’ economic framework suggests that the non-obviousness bar should be rather high.

Implementing a rational software policy obviously requires some significant changes to existing case law. A number of policy levers might be brought to bear on this problem. First, obviousness doctrine needs to be reformed, preferably by way of a more informed application of the level of skill in the art or alternatively by application of new secondary considerations of non-obviousness.

Poor handling of software patents by the Federal Circuit

The paper argued that broad software patents were indeed what the existing Federal Circuit jurisprudence will likely produce. By relaxing the enablement requirement and permitting software inventions defined in broad terms, supported by very little in the way of detailed disclosure, the Federal Circuit has encouraged software patents to be drafted broadly and to be applied to allegedly infringing devices that are far removed from the original patented invention.

By implication, the Federal Circuit’s standard also seems to suggest that many narrower software patents on low- level incremental improvements will be invalid for obviousness in view of earlier, more general disclosures. They may also be invalidated under the on- sale bar, because the Supreme Court’s view that a software invention is “ready for patenting” when it is the subject of a commercial order and when the inventor has described its broad functions, even if it is not clear how the code will be written or that it will work for its intended purpose, means that any patentee who waits until the code is written to file a patent application risks being time-barred for not filing earlier. Unfortunately, the Federal Circuit’s current standard seems to be precisely backwards. Software is an industry characterized by at least to a limited extent by competition theory and to a greater extent by cumulative innovation. Cumulative innovation theory suggests that patent protection for incremental software inventions should be relatively easy to acquire in order to reward incremental improvements, implying a somewhat lower obviousness threshold. It also suggests that the resulting patents should be narrow and, in particular, that they should not generally extend across several product generations for fear of stifling subsequent incremental improvements. This suggests that software patents should be limited in scope.

Second, a higher disclosure requirement and restrictions on the doctrine of equivalents will help reduce patent scope. Additionally, the authors think software patents are the ideal candidate for a new policy lever: reverse engineering. Many commentators have explained the importance of permitting competitors to reverse engineer a product in order to see how it works and to figure out ways to design around it. In the case of copyright, courts have adapted the doctrine of fair use, together sometimes with copyright misuse, to allow competitors to engage in reverse engineering of computer software. Patent law includes no express provision allowing reverse engineering, nor is there any judicially developed exception akin to copyright’s fair use doctrine that might permit it. Indeed, patent law generally lacks provisions akin to fair use or other exceptions that might readily be pressed into the service of reverse engineering, although commentators have suggested that patent law may need such exceptions for precisely this reason.

This does not mean that reverse engineering a patented product is necessarily illegal patent law. Some inventions, such as the paper clip, are readily apparent once embodied in a product. Improvers do not need to reverse engineer the paper clip and figure out how it works in order to improve it; they just need to look at it. Additionally, in many cases, the patentee has done all the work necessary for reverse engineering patented inventions by virtue of disclosing how to make and use the claimed invention in the patent specification. In theory, an express provision authorizing reverse engineering would be superfluous if the enabling disclosures required to secure a patent were sufficiently strong – someone who wanted to learn how a patented device worked would only need to read the patent specification. Patentable inventions in software, however, generally do not have these characteristics. Software devices typically cannot be readily understood by casual inspection, and particularly not without access to human-readable source code or other documentation. Examination of the patent itself is unlikely to yield information equivalent to a reverse engineered inspection because the Federal Circuit does not require would-be patentees of software inventions to disclose the implementing source code or, for that matter, very much at all about their inventions. Accordingly, software patents present unique obstacles to consummation of the patent law’s traditional rights-for-disclosure bargain with the public. The specific reverse engineering techniques commonly used for software, in turn, may raise some infringement problems that are unique to software. The definition of infringement in the patent statute is extremely broad, encompassing anyone who “makes, uses, offers to sell, ... sells..., or imports” a patented product. Reverse engineering a patented computer program by decompiling it likely fits within this broad category of prohibited conduct, at least where the program itself is claimed as an apparatus. Reverse engineering clearly constitutes a “use” of the patented software, though owners of a particular copy of the program surely have the right to use it. More significantly, decompilation may also constitute “making” the patented program by generating a temporary yet functional copy of it in RAM memory and, in certain instances, a longer-term (though still “intermediate”) copy in more permanent memory. Those copies probably constitute patent infringement unless protected by some defense. The result of all of this is that the nominally neutral patent law rule – no defense for reverse engineering – affects software more than other industries.

The need for a reverse engineering exception in patent law militates in favor of adapting the existing doctrines of exhaustion or experimental use to that end. Patent misuse might also be adapted, as it has been in the copyright arena, to prevent patent holders from deterring or prohibiting reverse engineering related to their inventions. The exception might even be created out of whole cloth by reinterpreting the infringement provisions of section 271(a). The resulting patent doctrine would constitute a macro policy lever. As Cohen and Lemley observe, in most industries there is either no need to reverse engineer an invention or reverse engineering can be done without infringing the patent.

The paper concludes by stating, “Only in software is there a need for a particular doctrine to protect the right to reverse engineer —and therefore the ability of improvers to innovate. Thus, a judicially created reverse engineering defense would make sense across the board in software cases but not in other patent cases.”

[1]Samantha Cassar, "App Developers Series: Products-Services Dichotomy & IP (Part I)”, last accessed July 21, 2015

[2]IAMAI, “An inquiry into the impact of India's App economy”, 2015

[3]DoT has set up a 1000 crore app development centre called Application Development Infrastructure and 700 crores under the National E-Governance Plan have been allocated for mobile technology ventures

[4]Supra note 1

[5]Supra note 2

[6]Hippel, Eric von, and Georg von Krogh. "Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science." Organization science 14.2 (2003): 209-223.

[7]Supra note 1

[8]Ibid

[9] Samantha Cassar, “Mobile App Developer Series: Terms of Agreement – Part IV”, last accessed July 21

[10]Ibid

[11]Ibid

[12]Ibid

[13]Ibid

[14]Gartner Data

[15]Supra note 1

[16]Ibid

[17]Samantha Cassar, “Interviews with App Developers: [dis]regard towards IPR vs. Patent Hype – Part II”, last accesed July 21, 2015

[18]Ibid

[19]Ibid

[20]Ibid

[21]Ibid

[22]Ibid

[23]Ibid

[24]Samantha Cassar, “Interviews with App Developers: Name of the Game (Part IV)”, last accessed July 21, 2015

[25]Ibid

[26]"Strategy as Ecology," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82, No. 3, March 2004.

[27] Evans, D. S., A. Hagiu and R. Schmalensee, 2006, Invisible Engines: How Software Platforms

Drive Innovation and Transform Industries, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

[28]Kouris, Iana and Kleer, Rob, "BUSINESS MODELS IN TWO-SIDED MARKETS: AN ASSESSMENT OF STRATEGIES FOR APP PLATFORMS" (2012). 2012 International Conference on Mobile Business. Paper 22.
http://aisel.aisnet.org/icmb2012/22

[29]Fransman, M. (2014) Models of Innovation in Global ICT Firms: The Emerging Global Innovation Ecosystems. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports –EUR 26774 EN. Seville: JRC-IPTS

[30] Deniz and Kehoe, Factors that attract and retain third party developers in mobile ecosystems, June 2013

[31]Nadea Saad Noori (2009) Managing External Innovation: The case of platform extension, available at http://www3.carleton.ca/tim/theses/2009/Noori2009.pdf

[32]Tsai, Phal & Robert, Industry Platform Construction and Development in a changing environment: Evidence from the ICT Industry, available at http://druid8.sit.aau.dk/acc_papers/6s5aqckmne7ggybu0vfxryrynuog.pdf

[33] Supra note 9

[34] Ibid.

[35]John Baskin, Competitive Regulation of Mobile Software Systems: Promoting Innovation Through Reform of Antitrust and Patent Laws (2013)

[36] Constantinou, 2012b

[37]Ibid.

[38]Luis H Hestres (2013) App Neutrality: Apple’s App Store and Freedom of Expression Online , American University , International Journal of Communication 7 (2013), 1265–1280

[39]Supra note 9

[40]Ibid.

[41] Supra note 9

[42]App Annie Data

[43]Supra note 1

[44]Samantha Cassar, “Interviews with App Developers: Open Source, Community, and Contradictions – Part III”, last accessed July 21

[45]Ibid

[46]Ibid

[47]Ibid

[48]Ibid

[49] William Fisher, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INNOVATION: THEORETICAL, EMPIRICAL, AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES

[50]Patent Quality and a Two‐Tiered Patent System (Vidya Atal and Talia Brar, 2014)

[51]http://copyrightalliance.org/2014/05/federal_circuit_releases_decision_oracle_v_google

[52]http://copyrightalliance.org/2014/05/federal_circuit_releases_decision_oracle_v_google#.VYf0i9Z5MxB

[53]http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4qr081sg

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-project-working-document-series-literature-review-on-ipr-in-mobile-app-development

Pervasive Technologies Project Working Document Series: Document 2 Literature Review on Competition Law + IPR + Access to < $100 Mobile Devices

Amulya Purushothama and Nehaa Chaudhari — 2015-09-03T02:02:51Z

This note is the second document in the series of Working Documents that I will be creating for my research under the Pervasive Technologies: Access to Knowledge in the Marketplace (“PT Project”).

View the first document here. Note: The research was for this blog post was done by Amulya Purushothama which wasn't acknowledged earlier.

Preliminary

This note will serve as the literature review for my research paper under this project. This note- to be revised periodically- maps the existing literature around questions of competition law intersecting with intellectual property law on the specific issue of enabling access to sub hundred dollar mobile devices; which might be impaired as a result of intellectual property protections, particularly standard essential patents.

This note will explore the literature around the relationship between intellectual property and competition law; with a specific focus on the antitrust/competition concerns that arise around the licensing of standard essential patents. This note will study the approach adopted in other jurisdictions in the employment of existing mechanisms in competition law as possible solutions to issues with the licensing of standard essential patents.

Literature Review

Smartphones and Access to knowledge.

The Avendus Capital report[1] on mobile data usage in India provides important information about mobile internet users in India. Particularly the striking fact that more than half of the internet users in India use it on their low cost mobile phone and that access to these phones therefore becomes a step toward access to the internet. John Harmen Valk and others [2] have through their report demonstrated how mobile phones with internet access have been used to further educational outcomes in India and Asia and underscores the idea that access to such technology is important.

Competition Law and Intellectual Property

Academic writing around the nexus between intellectual property law and competition law presents varied perspectives; particularly on the question of whether they each acted as incentives for innovation, or whether competition law hindered innovation that intellectual property (seemingly) promoted. This narrative does not question a more fundamental concept; of whether intellectual property protections necessarily incentivized innovation; but takes that as the underlying assumption that they do.

Gitanjali Shankar and Nitika Gupta have noted that antitrust law and intellectual property have in the past seen to diverse and work against each other with different approaches to monopoly and that the two have also been viewed as related to each other in so far as intellectual property has been viewed as one of the tools to regulate competition in the market place. they propose that if the latter approach is taken and the two branches of law are seen to converge, two guidelines must be followed in to balance the various interests and ensure clarity, first that IP laws must only be extended by legislation and not through judicial interpretation, the second that when two interpretations are available during the enforcement of any intellectual property, that interpretation must be chosen which is in line with encourages the free market and promotes fair competition.

They have argued that both antitrust law and intellectual property have separate operational areas and their functions must be kept independent of each other. They argue that the domain of intellectual property concerns the assignment and defense of intellectual property rights and the domain of antitrust deals with the use and exercise of such rights within the market. They argue that competition law does not call into question that basis of IPRs that it doesn't question the exclusivity of legal rights, merely their abuse which results in unfair trade practices. They argue that the distance between economic and legal monopolies should be maintained and these fall within the domains of antitrust law and intellectual property respectively. They further argue that antitrust law exists to ensure that the IPR owner does not abuse his rights and thus bolsters intellectual property rights. [3]

Robert Pitofsky while reviewing a work of Prof. Mark Lemley explains that while anti-trust laws and intellectual property laws have the same long term goals of incentivizing innovation and investment in innovation, they are bound to conflict with each other in the short term as anti-trust law seeks to achieve this goal via limiting the possibilities of a monopoly and further ensuring that monopolies do not abuse the power they enjoy in the market place. Antitrust policies assume that the free market will fairly allocate resources and thereby encourage innovation efficiently. Pitofsky goes on to state that intellectual property on the other hand believes in rewarding innovation and thereby incentivizing investing in innovation, intellectual property is basically a grant of limited monopolies to ensure that costs of innovation are recovered and product quality is maintained. He argues that it is critical to ensure that patents are granted after thorough analysis to ensure a balance between anti-trust policies and intellectual property rights and to ensure that the larger goals of incentivizing innovation are achieved.[4]

Katrina Perehudoff and Sophie Bloemen have argued that anti-competitive strategies such as defensive patenting (the creation of weak and frivolous patents around their main patent) and vexatious litigation (the use of litigation as a threat to smaller and medium enterprises who cannot afford costs of litigation) have ensured that the bestselling originators medicine dominates the market for artificially long periods of time ensuring that the company therefore profits at the expense of public interest and obstructs widespread access, it is argued that such practices go against the aims of the patent system which were to ensure that the innovator could recoup costs of invention and in fact hamper incentives to invent. [5] It is submitted that while in this instance the discussion of defensive patenting as well as holding out is in the context of healthcare, similar trends have been witnessed in the space of technological patents as well. With standard essential patents for instance, there exists a very real danger of frivolous litigation and hold-outs ensuring market dominance by larger players, forcing out smaller and medium sized enterprises.

While acknowledging that intellectual property law and competition law might both seek to achieve a common goal of incentivizing innovation, Daniel Ravicher and Shani Dilloff have argued that the scrutiny of intellectual property exploitation from an antitrust perspective lacks economic and political merit. They argue that governments and courts have time and again preferred to enforce antitrust policy at the expense of enforcing intellectual property rights as evidenced by the cases of International Salt Co. v. United States[6], United States v. Lowe's Inc. [7], and Siegel v. Chicken Delight, Inc.[8] among others. They argue that the law depends on the flawed assumption that intellectual property confers upon the rights holder some kind of market power through creation of monopolies as evidenced by Jefforson Parish Hospital District No.2 v. Hyde[9] and the U.S. Department of Justice Guidelines on licensing of intellectual property[10] and is therefore in the wrong.

They argue that no such power is conferred on the rights holder because intellectual property rights do not confer monopolies so much as they ensure that a certain standard of uniqueness is assured, and that this standard of uniqueness falls short of the uniqueness required to obtain monopoly power within a market. They argue that IPRs do not grant the ability to raise prices above the competitive level and do not grant the right to exclude a rival or to exclude new entrants in the field, they only grant a right to prohibit others from exploiting their creation in an unfair manner and provide for sufficient limitations and exceptions to ensure that fair exploitation of their works is still allowed. And therefore while sound economic theory that ensures free marketplace through government regulation underlies most of antitrust policy, scrutiny of intellectual property through an antitrust point of view is economically flawed.

In a departure from other perspectives, the authors in this paper also argue that the factors affecting the employment of antitrust policies are not entirely legal; and that this preference is often a reflection of non-meritorious factors such as arguable predictions for the future, difference in financial stability of the competing parties, the political persuasion of the decision maker or the posturing of the parties and the courts being simply hostile to intellectual property rights and is unfair to intellectual property owners. They further argue that this preference is politically indefensible as it undermines the intent of the legislature. They argue that because of these things the case law so far that deals with this conflict is unreliable, unpredictable and not credible. They lastly argue that the solution out this conflict is to ensure economic efficiency by exempting intellectual property rights from scrutiny based on antitrust policies.[11]

Robert Anderson argues that IPRs do not inherently confer market power on rights holders and that in many cases restrictions on licensing could encourage competitive behavior and economic efficiency while not losing sight of the fact that IPRs can result in anti-competitive behavior in certain circumstances, particularly in context of network industries and that competition law must respond to these issues. This paper also makes a reference to the Trade Related Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights ("TRIPS Agreement"), and the provision that it makes that allow member countries to curb anticompetitive practices through Article 8.2 and Article 40 and thus catering to the interests of developing nations. The paper also notes that the TRIPS Agreement does not set out a specific list of practices that should be treated as abuses. Further, this paper goes on to analyse intellectual property regimes in the US, Canada, Japan and the EU and concludes that the US has maintained a liberal environment for granting of intellectual property rights while being cautious of abuse of IPRs for anticompetitive purposes, that Canada on the other hand has been suspicious of legislative efforts to curb the proper use of IPRs that the EU has adopted a far stricter approach to the issue to achieve market integration, and that Japan has chosen a somewhat middle path by providing for a case by case evaluation of practices. It is argued that certain restraints on international trade such as the restriction on parallel importation due to IPRs segment markets and is harmful to trade and collective innovation and some mechanism for exhausting of these rights must be considered. [12] This cross jurisdictional analysis is particularly useful, and will be examined in detail in my research paper.

Elieen Mc Dermott, in a discussion on FTC public hearings in December 2008 to discuss the overlap between intellectual property laws and antitrust and competition laws, identifies that Innovation Alliance, an organization that represents technology patent owning companies put forward three principles to govern antitrust policies, the first to define antitrust policy to promote consumer welfare and to limit its role to conduct that has "a demonstrable anticompetitive effect", second to bring on board the diverse range of interests and business models involved and third to ensure that principles behind patent law have evolved before allowing antitrust enforcement agency involvement in patent cases.[13] This submission by Innovation Alliance will now be studied in greater detail while attempting a submission on India's stance on competition law issues in the licensing of standard essential patents.

Herbert Hovenkamp has argued that for most of history, antitrust law and intellectual property law have undermined their own purpose of encouraging innovation by protecting too much, whether it is the shielding of inefficient business from competition or the shielding of IPRs beyond what is necessary to incentivize innovation, in both cases the consumer is harmed and the costs of innovation increases. He argues that while it is good that we have lately come to view patents as a kind of property as opposed to a kind of monopoly, since there is no real proof that patents lead to market power, we haven't extended to patents the same kind of conditions we extend to other kinds of property, like the obligation to define the boundaries of ownership another being the obligation to ensure that notice of the claim to property is rendered in time, neither of these obligations, he says, are imposed upon patent holders. He states that this leads to over protection and wastage of state resources.

He goes on to offer a few principles for antitrust in innovation intensive markets that involve exercise of patent rights; the first being that the purpose of antitrust must not be to fix defects in other regimes, but only to correct private markets, second that any antitrust or intellectual property intervention is justified only when congress or a tribunal has a reason for thinking that such an intervention is necessary to ensure more competition or more innovation, third is that many IP practices do not conflict with antitrust laws and antitrust policies shouldn't intervene in such cases, fourth that innovation provides society with more gains than simple production and trading under constant technology and therefore, when we have to choose between innovation and competition, we must choose innovation, fifth that innovation is more than what is simply defined under intellectual property law and at times, when practices seem clearly anti-competitive and IP statutes do not provide us with answers, we should consider antitrust policies as guidelines, sixth that IP protections can at times protect competition more efficiently than antitrust legislation, seventh that IP law must constantly examine its roots as antitrust legislation has and ensure that any expansion of IPR is well thought out.[14]

John Barton examines antitrust treatment of oligopolies that use IPRs defensively to block new entrants into the market. These oligopolists each have substantial patent portfolios that are infringed by its competitors but never a matter of litigation as there is the fear of counter litigation. Therefore there is an implied licensing of patent portfolios among the oligopolists. It is further argued that under systems like this, while there is an incentive for firms to acquire more patents to build defensive portfolios, there is no incentive to actually carry out new research therefore firms will obtain patents on existing research base and therefore this stunts innovation. Further oligopolists holding cross-infringing patents may put up entry barriers for new entrants and thereby dis-incentivize innovation. Due to all of these reasons, the paper argues for patent law reform and appropriate application of antitrust analysis to ensure that the IP system encourages innovation.[15]

Essential Facilities Doctrine

This section of the note looks at the literature surrounding the Essential Facilities Doctrine- an aspect of antitrust law that is employed in order to adjudge behavior as anticompetitive or the lack thereof.

Essential facilities doctrine is an aspect of antitrust law that imposes a duty upon firms that have patents/ copyrights or trade secrets with regard to an essential facility to ensure that they do not put in place a monopoly and make the facility available to their rivals. In the context of IPRs, an essential facilities doctrine functions in a way that is equivalent to compulsory licensing regimes. Different jurisdictions adopt different standards and approaches to the employment of this doctrine. By tracking the literature around this doctrine, these different approaches across jurisdictions will be studied, including landmark cases, and submissions made in the research paper on whether this doctrine may be employed in India - specifically to adjudge whether there was a case to be made out for anti -competitive behavior in the smartphone wars on standard essential patents.

MCI Communications Corporation v. AT&T[16] is the landmark case with regard to the essential facilities doctrine, in this case MCI argued that AT&T's switching equipment was an essential facility and access to such an essential facility was necessary to conduct telemarketing business. The court in this case laid down the necessary elements to establish a claim to essential facilities:

a) Control of an essential facility by a monopolist

b) Competitors inability practically or reasonably to duplicate the essential facility

c) The denial of the use of the facility to a competitor and

d) The feasibility of providing the facility.[17]

Richard Gilbert and Carl Shapiro have argued that a unilateral refusal to deal (which is often one of the conditions that needs to be met before the essential facilities doctrine is employed) can be justified in the context of profit-maximizing firms in certain cases such as: cases where the owner of the facility wants to ensure a certain level of service quality with his facility, cases where the owner wants to prevent free riding, prevent new entrants into the market, cases where the owner wants to promote price discrimination in the sale of the final product, and cases where the owner is not adequately compensated for licensing out his essential facility. These justifications it is argued increase economic efficiency in the market, ensure quality of services rendered, increase incentives for investment and innovation etc. It is further argued that in the long run, it is more economically efficient for companies to refuse to deal rather than to set higher prices, simply because in a system where one cannot refuse to deal, the incentive for firms to misrepresent their actual costs to obtain licenses etc., and further that an obligation to license can have negative effects on economic welfare, it can reduce welfare in the short run by forcing inefficient licensing, it can also reduce welfare in the long run by reducing incentives for innovation and investment and creation of intellectual property.[18]

Robert Pitofsky, Donna Patterson and Jonathan Hooks on the other hand have argued in support of the essential facilities doctrine and supported the use of this doctrine in cases concerning intellectual property rights, the authors here argued that the harshness of the anticompetitive effects of denial of access take precedence over business justifications, especially when specific animus to injure a rival has been proven. The authors argued that while it was important to ensure that the doctrine was not expanded to include a vague and amorphous set of rights, it was important to ensure that the monopolists arguments against the doctrine should not succeed regardless of the nature of the essential facility, whether it is intellectual property or even if the case did not involve vertically related markets.[19]

Paul Maquardt and Mark Leddy in their response to Pitofsky, Patterson and Hooks argued that it is not anticompetitive behavior if the normal enforcement of an intellectual property right results in market power is getting skewed in favor of the rights holder, and the intellectual property rights should not be limited by compulsory licensing. They have argued that the essential facilities doctrine should only apply in cases where the rights holder attempts to leverage his exclusionary rights from the market in which the innovation competes into a related market or in cases of abuse of those rights because in cases where the rival is competing directly with the facility incorporating the intellectual property protection, the rights holder would not be damaging incentives to innovate as he would in cases of abuse or in cases of leveraging the protection to attain profits in a related field. They argue that to force compulsory licensing in other cases where the rival is in direct competition to the right holder would harm incentives to innovate and create intellectual property, a goal that both intellectual property rights and anti-trust laws are supposed to achieve. [20]

Martin Cave and Peter Crowther have argued that the European Commission seems to have embraced the essential facilities doctrine quite well despite not properly codifying the criteria used to determine whether a facility is essential and access to this facility should be mandatory. They have found that in the U.S., a) the courts have decided the question of whether or not a facility is "essential" on the basis of whether new entrants to the field would be able to duplicate the facility as evidenced by the cases of MCI Communications Corporation v. AT&T[21] and Hecht v. Pro Football Inc It is as yet undecided at what point a refusal to deal in a facility will render the rival without an alternative option. In Camco Inc. v. Providence Fruit & Produce Bldg.[22]it was decided that a facility was essential insofar as alternatives were inferior. There is no requirement of a duplication of the facility to be impossible as evidenced from Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States[23] . They have also found that as per Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. [24], there is no general duty to deal on the monopolists. They have also found that liability under the essential facilities doctrine can be found in the presence of the following conditions: a) control of an essential facility by a monopolist, b) a competitor's inability to duplicate the facility, c) the denial of the use of the facility to the rival, and d) the feasibility of providing the facility

Under analysis of the law in Australia, they found that section 46 of the Trade Practices Act, 1974 proscribes taking advantage of a substantial degree of market power for the purpose of a) eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor, b) preventing the entry of a person into a market or c) deterring or preventing a person from engaging in competitive conduct in a market. They found two important cases in Australian law, Queensland Wire, the first Australian case to consider adopting the US essential facilities doctrine which ruled that the monopolistic firm couldn't refuse to sell facilities to the smaller firm if had been subject to competition in the supply of that product while not actually mentioning the essential facilities doctrine, the second case of importance would be Pont Data litigation where Pont Data wanted to supply stock exchange information which the Australian Stock Exchange had a monopoly on, the court on appeal held that ASX should be ordered to supply information but "on terms designed to obtain a broad and substantial justice between parties"

They have further argued that there is even less certainty in respect of the price at which access to an essential facility should be made available. This is evidenced by their study of the laws in New Zealand. They found that in New Zealand the landmark judgment to study would be the Privy Council judgment in Clear Telecommunications Ltd v. Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Ltd. This case arose out of a dispute between the state owned telecom which monopolized the public telecommunication system and Clear a new entrant into the market after Telecomwas privatized. The dispute mainly concerned about the price which Clear should pay Telecom for providing access to the Telecom network, while Clear argued that it should only be required to pay Telecom for the direct costs of providing access, Telecom held that Clear should pay the equivalent of profits which telecom would lose by granting access- the opportunity costs. The Privy Council agreed with Telecom in that insofar as Clear had not proved that it would be forced to pay monopoly prices because it was paying opportunity costs, it had not been proved that there were any entry barriers to the market.

In their analysis of the European Union, these authors found that Article 86 prohibits the abuse of the dominant position within a common market by under takings that consist in particular of a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or unfair trading conditions, b) limiting production markets… to the prejudice of consumers, c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions. The European Court of Justice has already decided that dominance can be assessed by a reference to the dependence of the consumer on the supplier inCommercial Solvents v. Commission. [25] And in Hugin v. Commission[26] The court first mentioned essential facilities in the United Brands case[27] where the ECJ held that the charging of discriminatory prices against and the refusal to supply a longstanding customer and distributor who had taken part in a sales campaign on behalf of a competitor had infringe article 86. Therefore if a firm acts in such a way that it could possibly affect rivals by precluding access to an essential facility, it would be an abuse of intellectual property.[28]

Albertina Albors-Llorens has reported on the recent judgment of the ECJ in Oscar Bronner CmbH and Co. KG v.Mediaprint Zeitungs -und Zeitschriftenverlag CmbH & Co. KG and others[29], the ECJ in this case has defined "essential facilities" as a "facility or infrastructure without access to which competitors cannot provide services to their customers"[30] under the doctrine, any dominant undertaking that owns or controls an essential facility and refuses without an objective justification [31] to make the facility available to its competitors or makes it available under discriminatory terms abuses its position of dominance. The court here distinguished the case from earlier case law including the case of Commercial Solvents and from the Magill case[32] where the court held that copyright holders who published guides of television programmes for their channels refused to license an independent company which wanted to publish a comprehensive television program guide had based their position of dominance and prevented a the emergence of a new beneficial product to the consumer and therefore it was not objectively justified and that it was otherwise impossible for Magill to obtain the information that was essential to carry on its business. She reports that the court in Bronner held that this case was distinguished from the precedent as there were less advantageous methods of distribution available and it wasn't impossible forBronner to set up their own home delivery system.[33]

Gregory Gundlach and Paul Bloom have analyzed the history of the essential facilities doctrine and cases refusals to deal , they have noted the refusal by Microsoft to deal with firms seeking to provide compatible software products and share its knowledge of its key operating systems for IBM compatible computers and its investigation by the Federal Trace Comission (FTC). They trace back the essential facilities doctrine from the case of United States v. Grinnel Corporation[34] which held that monopolization necessarily had to include the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and the acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of superior product, business acumen or historic accident. Preventing a rival from accessing an essential facility was held to be evidence suggestive of intent to monopolize and a challenge to the Sherman Act. They argue that this doctrine presents a challenge to marketers as they now have to ensure that they don't compete themselves into antitrust challenges, ensure that rivals don't attempt to free ride on their research and investment, they argue that while forcing firms to enable their rivals to access their essential facilities is at odds with the idea of competitive behavior, prudent application of this doctrine may ensure that welfare is substantially enhance and innovation is encouraged. They propose that the duty to deal be imposed only when commercial viability of the rival is at stake as a measure of protecting the rights of the firms. They also propose that new modes of competition such as strategic alliances, long term partnership be kept in mind before when forming future policy development in the area. [35]

Spencer Weber Waller and William Tasch have compared the law in the US with the law in the European Union and several other countries, and argue that there is a growing international consensus that it is sometimes appropriate to require a regime of nondiscriminatory access to infrastructure and related facilities. They have pointed out that common law countries and civil law countries have responded to the issue in different ways, for example, Germany has dealt with the issue by passing the German Act Against Restraints that contains provisions regarding abuse of dominant position in refusal to allow other undertakings access to essential facilities without proper justification. South Africa, they note has adopted a two pronged approach to unilateral refusal to deals, one through the South African Competition act that prohibits refusals to deal and another through the same legislation that prohibits refusal to supply scarce goods to a competitor when supplying those goods is economically feasible. They argue that since the essential facilities doctrine has become an accepted law in most competition jurisdictions, the US must work to harmonize their laws with the rest of the world to ensure better trade practices. [36]

Daniel E Troy has argued that post the Hecht v. Pro-Football, Inc. case, jurisprudence in competition law shifted from intent to the actions of the monopolists. He argues that there are no clear rules regarding when the essential facilities doctrine should be invoked or a consensus as to what the doctrine requires once invoked. He proposes that the resulting confusion be resolved by ensuring that the essential facilities doctrine cover all arbitrary refusals to deal when such a refusal threatens the commercial viability of the rival party, or when access to the facility is necessary for entry into the market or when duplication of the facility exceeds the standard cost of entry.[37]

Howard Shelanski has argued that unilateral refusal to deal must be susceptible to antitrust scrutiny, he argues that neither economics not IP policy considerations provide a sound basis for exempting refusals to supply IP from antitrust laws on unilateral refusals to deal. He argues that while there may be a case for treating IPRs different on some occasion that should be based on logical links between IP and the considerations that weigh against antitrust mandates to deal in any property: deterrence of innovation, investment or precompetitive conduct.[38]

Royalty Stacking in Smartphone Industry

Ann Armstrong, Joseph J Mueller and Timothy D Syrett[39] have collected and analysed data on the royalty burdens to be faced by a standard smartphone supplier and the adverse effects royalty stacking might have on competition in the smart phone industry. It is an article rich in detail and carefully explains the costs of each of the components that make up a smartphone, in doing so they also trace the mobile phone Standard Essential Patents (SEP) litigation occurring in United States of America (USA). They conclude that royalties demands on a smartphone could exceed the cost of the devices components, and that due to royalty stacking, costs of patent royalties act as an entry barrier for many suppliers thereby limiting competition in the market. They have argued that in calculating the royalty for a component, licensees, advocates and courts should base their conclusions on the price of the component and not on percentage of sales price of the entire smartphone which is the current practice. They have argued that this valuation is even more important for standardized technologies because patent holders usually only have a small slice of the declared patents for a particular standard and where that standard is just one of the many supported by the device. They present data to prove that when royalties are so vigorously calculated, they turn out to be a fraction of what patent-holders claim. This article was used mostly for background information on how royalty stacks work and how FRAND prices must ideally be calculated, and as a source of information on litigation surrounding royalty stacking in USA.

Damien Geradin in his articles[40] on pricing abuses by SEP holders in SSOs in EU and USA documents the evolution of competition law in these courts and the work of the Federal Trade Commission in this regard. He examines the role of the FTC in quite some detail, and this article provided important background information on the question of the potential role of the CCI.

Bouthenia Guermazi and David Satola[41] have argued that in creating a right enabling environment for the ICT, one of the goals of regulation is to create a stable, open and future-proof environment that encourages access and doesn't limit it.

Tracing Mobile Phone SEP Litifation:Treatment by European Commission and Federal Trade Commission

Damien Geradin and Miguel Rato[42] have inquired into the question of whether SSOs provide for an environment of exploitation and abuse due to royalty stacking, weak enforcement of FRAND terms, and hold-ups. They have identified three criteria for the establishment/adoption of an industry standard - first, that it is a set of technical specifications; second, that these technical specifications provide a common design; and third, that the common design provided may be for a product or a process. These criteria have been used in the paper.

Michael A Carrier in his article[43] focuses on the smartphone industry and the ongoing patent and FRAND licensing litigation wars. He traces court rulings on holdups and injunctions granted on SEPs and discusses EC investigations into Motorola and Samsung in detail. This article was useful in that it provided for a good resource on recent judgments surrounding FRAND Licensing and SEP litigations focusing on the smartphone industry.

Mark A Lemley and Carl Shapiro[44] in their article demonstrate that even a threat to obtain a permanent injunction enhances the patent holders negotiating power, leading to royalty rates that exceed a natural benchmark based on the value of the patented technology and the strength of the patent. They argue that such overcharging occurs more noticeably in the case of weak patents covering a minor feature of the product with a sizeable price/cost margin. They present data to show that these holdup problems are reduced if courts regularly grant stays to permanent injunctions. , that they are magnified in the presence of royalty stacking, and that royalty stacking can become a huge problem especially in a standard setting context. This article was useful in understanding the holdup issues with regard to SEPs and the effect of royalty stacking.

Lemley and Shapiro in another article[45] have argued that one method of efficiently settling FRAND disputes would be to impose an obligation on the SEP owner to entire into a binding final offer decided in arbitration with any willing licensee to determine the royalty rate. This article provided important insights into the holdup problem and possible solutions that could be considered.

Phillipe Baechtold in his presentation[46] makes the argument that the central problem with the approach to solving the issue of ensuring Standard Setting organisations achieve interoperability and allow for licensing on FRAND terms is that a problem with patent laws is being solved in a manner that focuses other legal systems such as competition law, health law etc. He argues that there is a need to address these issues within the patent system itself. This article has been used to understand different solutions to the issue that have been proposed so far.

Richard Schmalensee[47] in his article argues that competition policy should not favour patent holders who would use their patents to stop innovation and that SSOs should determine standards based on lower post-standard royalty rates. The claim of interest in his article is that in the absence of a deceptive act, it would be difficult to prove in a case that a differing standard could have been adopted had there been a full disclosure of patent.

Gertjan Kuipers[48] has provided a useful resource on the Apple v Samsung cases in Netherlands and this has been useful to understand non-disclosure of patents as an anti-competitive practice within SSOs. Leon Greenfields article that surveys non-US decisions on SEP disputes also makes for a useful resource in the same regard. [49]

In their article, Damien Neven and Miguel de la Mano[50] discuss the activities of the Directorate General for Competition at the European Commission during the course of one year and discuss cases and policy developments during that time. It served as a useful resource on cases relating to violation of FRAND Commitments and in understanding the functioning of SSOs.

Bjorn Lundgvist[51] has analysed EU and US antitrust/competition law, and argued that Orange Book Standard case where it was held that abuse of dominant position is a valid claim if a patentee refuses to conclude a license agreement on non discriminatory and non-restrictive terms, is problematic as the potential licensee only has the option of paying the customary royalty rate or accepting the rate that the patentee offers by applying "reasonable excercised discretion" and that this doesn't give much leeway for licensees to question the validity of the rate.

James Abell[52] documents cases in the US federal courts regarding standards development organisations, antitrust law and fraud his analysis of the Broadcom Corp v. Qualcomm Inc., was particularly well done and proved to be useful in tracing SEP litigation in the US. Koren W Wong Ervin [53] in her important article traces SEP litigation across the world in various countries. This makes for an important resource on the subject as it serves as a primer on SEP litigation in many jurisdictions including China, Japan, India, EU and the US among others.

Mobile Phone SEP Litigation in India

Ravikant Bharadwaj in his article[54] provides a broad overview of standard setting in India and the competition and IPR issues associated with it. He makes the important argument that once an industry standard has been set, and since the goal is to ensure inter-operability, denial of access to these standards on FRAND terms could become barriers to trade.

Anubha Sinha[55] in her report on Spicy IP traces the Ericsson- Micromax dispute at the Competition Commission of India (CCI), this has been used as a background document to trace the timeline in the dispute while tracing mobile phone SEP litigation in India.

Prashanth Reddy in his article [56] argues against interim injunctions stating that these injunctions should be used as an exception and not as a matter of a rule. He argues that in many cases courts either don't provide reasoning or provide insufficient reasoning behind orders granting injunctions. He argues that protection of IPRs cannot be a convincing reason on its own in this context particularly because patent infringement cases are complicated and can only be decided after a full trial and appreciation of evidence. In this context, he argues that issuing interim injunctions as a matter of course is a harmful practice that must be done away with.Vaibav Choukse makes a very similar argument in his article as well.[57]

John E Matheson in his article[58] seeks to understand how standards must be developed and what best practices can be followed by India in forming its IPR policy. He specifically argues that the litigation costs that invariably occur during hold ups and reverse hold ups ensure that smaller companies and newer start-ups ultimately give in to patentees who enjoy more market power and can bear the litigation costs for as long as it takes.

Pankaj Soni and Satyoki Koundinya in their article[59] outline the questions at the heart of the mobile phone FRAND disputes and focus on the disputes in India including Ericsson-Micromax, Intex, Vringo and Asus and ZTE disputes providing a fairly comprehensive timelines of the same. They argue that the threat of injunctions often bring licensees to the discussion table which otherwise would not have happened and that disallowing this would disincentivise patentees from disclosing their patents. This article makes important arguments in terms of what would incentivize pro-competitive behavior and how policy surrounding holdups could influence anti-competitive behavior.

Abuse of Dominance and Competition Law and Policy in India

The Competition Commission of India Guide to Abuse of Dominance[60] lays out in clear simple terms what constitutes abuse of dominance under competition law in India, while it does not refer to case law on the matter, it does make for a great source for interpreting and understanding Indian competition law and was used for the same purposes.

Samir Gandhi[61] in his article analyses trends in enforcement of competition law in India. He provides data to prove that the CCIs decisions seem to want to establish a greater familiarity with complex tools of assessments like including economic measures etc. He argues that the CCI is eager to make up for lost time and therefore doesn't shy away from issuing judgments quickly and imposing severe penalties. This is useful in understanding whether or not the CCI is the appropriate and competent authority to deal with cases that are likely to come up involving the smartphone industry.

Pratibha Jain and others[62] conduct a fascinating study of how competition law is enforced in the country, in a fairly comprehensive report with individual case studies. They demonstrate quite clearly that the CCI refrains from laying down broad principles and restricts its rulings to the facts of a particular case. It also provides important data on how many cases are dismissed and in how many cases the CCI has found anti-competitive behavior. This data helps understand how effective or otherwise the CCI has been.

Archana Shanker and Shraddha Singh[63] in their article have argued that competition law and IP must both be used in a harmonious manner. In doing so they have analyzed relevant legislation and important cases such as Micromax and Intex, They have analysed how capable the CCI or courts in India are when it comes to determining FRAND terms in the context of SSOs and SEPs. They argue that the CCI has shown a lack of understanding of the IP aspects in these cases and have focused on competition law to their exclusion. While this is a well written and informative article on mobile phone SEP litigation in India, it is important to point out that the article does not deal with how courts in India have failed to appreciate concerns regarding hold-ups while issuing stays or ex-parte orders.

Kanika Chaudhary[64] has written about jurisdictional issues that the CCI might face due to the wording of the Competition Act that states that the act is applicable to anti-competitive behavior notwithstanding other laws and yet another section stating that competition law must be harmonized with existing laws. She argues that there is a need to restructure competition law in this regard to avoid conflicts.

The CUTS International report on the CCI[65] provides for an important resource on comments about the CCI and its judgments and media reactions to the CCI. The report submits that while the CCI is generally seen to be doing well in the media, several academics have argued that the CCI is riddled by legal lacunae, that it lacks teeth and that because most of its orders have been appealed in courts, and it lacks autonomy due to rules of procedure, it is not an effective or efficient forum and needs to be improved by further legislation. The same has been corroborated by a report in the Indian Express that speaks of new bills that were in the offing in 2012 that were aimed at giving the CCI more teeth. [66]

Peter Alexiadis[67] in his outlines general principles of ex post and ex ante intervention and how the two disciplines come into tension with each other when competition law is involved in a dispute along with any other legal regime such as IPR laws. He explores ways in which these two disciplines must be balanced. This article was used to understand how the ex-post decisions involving competition law inevitably are backward looking and adopt a narrow view of the product, looking largely at its demand side-substitutability. This helps explore the argument that a sector specific regulatory body could better address complex technical and economic questions specific to the industry, as opposed to litigation merely being played out in the courts.

George Cary and Mark W Nelson[68] have delved into the question of the role of antitrust in policing abuse by patent holders with royalty stacks in standard setting organisations. They have argued that it is important for a legal tool to police this abuse because while other areas of law may prove capable of addressing these issues, these disputes are, at their core antitrust disputes. And only antitrust law can ensure that private parties and government enforcement authorities can seek redress where there is harm to competition.

Suzanne Michael in her article[69] argues that SEP holders who have their patent incorporated as a standard stand to gain by increasing royalty rates beyond RAND terms and beyond their actual economic value as they hold a monopoly simply because they own the standard. She argues that this will harm consumer interest and slow innovation. She further argues that an ex-ante approach should therefore be taken in ordering remedies in these cases to protect consumer interest. She also looks into the question of holdups and injunctions in cases involving RAND commitment. But her argument about ex ante remedies in RAND cases is an interesting point relevant to the paper.

Anne Layne-Farrar, A Jorge Padilla and Richard Schmalensee[70] in their article delve into the question of what exactly would constitute FRAND terms in the context of licensing terms for essential IP in a standards setting organization. They have also analyzed the Georgia-Pacific guidelines and extending it to a standard setting organization and the numeric proportionality method proposed by courts in EU. They conclude that the Georgia-Pacific guidelines might work in FRAND disputes, that while this would leave FRAND basically undefined, it would be made an enforceable promise with an SSO and that these guidelines would provide sufficient direction and predictability in litigation. This article has been used to understand what kind of guidelines a regulatory body could be expected to codify for patent remedies in India.

Rahul Singh in his article[71] analyses how due to its nature, the CCI is not sector specific and is supposed to look at "anti-competitive behavior" in all sectors most of whom already have their own sector specific regulator. He argues that unlike sector specific regulators, the CCI can privately enforce orders and pursue claims for damages and that this makes the CCI better situated to deal with consumer welfare areas. He further argues that to reduce transaction costs, enhance legal certainty and predictability, enforcement of such disputes must be left in the hands of the CCI. This argument has been extended to argue that courts enforcing IPRs would be less suited to handle these matters and more likely to cause inefficiencies and unpredictability and a re-imagined, empowered CCI would be the best suited judge of these issues.

K.D.Raju in his article[72] analyses broadly the connection between IP laws and competition law in India. He argues that while the jurisprudence behind IPR and competition law has traditionally been viewed as incompatible with each other, in effect, they seek to further the same goals. He argues that the competition laws as they exist in India currently cannot effectively deal with the nexus with IPR and suggests that the CCI come out with IPR specific guidelines to deal with upcoming litigation in the area.

Apoorva and Shreeja Sen[73] in their report trace the stay orders in courts across India holding up CCI investigations and how this is symptomatic of the fact that courts do not understand concerns regarding hold-ups and reverse hold-ups in IP related cases where time is of the essence.

Karthik Jayakumar[74] has written about the Bhatia International case regarding arbitration, we use this to merely draw parallels with IPR laws in that just as in Bhatia the court held that arbitrations having their seat outside India were still within the jurisdiction of Indian courts and this was overruled in the BALCO case , the role of the CCI also has to be made clear through legislative reform or judicial pronouncement for the regulator to address questions of competition law across different sectors without a threat of stay orders from courts.

Nick Robinson in his article[75] speaks of good governance courts, and of how courts in India have used good governance and right to life to become essentially second governments regulating everything from encouraging the use of natural gas to regulated encroachment on preservation of public forests to guidelines for school safety at the expense of government and independent regulators. While Nick Robinson makes a larger argument about good governance courts, it is used only for the limited purpose of supporting the argument made in the paper about judicial interventions allowing for anti-competitive behavior.

[1] Avendus Capital, India's Mobile Internet: The Revolution Has Begun: An Overview of How Mobile Internet Is Touching the Lives of Millions, Avendus Capital Private Limited, September 2013, available at http://www.avendus.com/Files/Fund%20Performance%20PDF/Avendus_Report-India's_Mobile_Internet-2013.pdf (last accessed 14 May, 2015).

[2] John-Harmen Valk et.al, Using Mobile Phones to Improve Educational Outcomes: An Analysis of Evidence from Asia, The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, Vol 11, No 1 (2010), available at http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/rt/printerFriendly/794/1487 (last accessed 10 May, 2015);

[3] Gitanjali Shankar & Nikita Gupta, Intellectual Property and Competition Law: Divergence, Convergence and Independence, NUJS Law Review, Vol.4, (2011), pp.113-132.

[4] Robert Pitofsky, Comments on Lemley: An Introduction to IPR and Antitrust, Southwestern Journal of Law & Trade in the Americas, Vo.13, (2006-07), pp.257-263

[5] Katrina Perehudoff & Sophie Bloemen, Anti-Competitive Strategies Hamper Access to Medicines in Europe, Amsterdam Law Forum,Vol.3, 2011, pp 81-87.

[6] 332 U.S. 392 (1947)

[7] 371 U.S. 38 (1962)

[8] 448 F.2d 43 (9th Cir. 1971).

[9] 466 U.S. 2 (1984).

[10] Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property, U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, Available at: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr.public.guidelines.ipguide.htm (Last Accessed: 1/12/14)

[11] Daniel B Raviche & Shani C Dilloff, Antitrust Scrutiny of Intellectual Property Exploitation: It just don't make no kind of sense, Southwester Journal of Law and Trade in the Americas, Vol.8, (2001-02), p.83-158

[12] Robert D Anderson, The Interface Between Competition and policy and Intellectual Property in the Context of the International Trading System, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.1, (1998), pp.655-680.

[13] Eileen Mc Dermot, Managing Intellectual Property, No.187, March 2009

[14] Howard Hovenkamp, Antitrust and Innovation: Where we are and where we should be going, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol.77, (2010-11), p.749-759

[15] John H Barton, Antitrust Treatment of Oligopolies with Mutually Blocking Patent Portfolios , Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 69, No. 3 (2002), pp. 851-882

[16] 708 F.2d 1081(7th Cir.) Cert. Denied. 464 U.S.955 (1983

[17] Id.

[18] Richard J Gilbert & Carl Shapiro, An Economic Analysis of Unilateral Refusals to License Intellectual Property, Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vo.93, No.23 (Nov.12, 1996), pp.12749-12755.

[19] Robert Pitofsky, Donna Patterson & Jonathan Hooks, The Essential Facilities Doctrine under U.S. Antitrust Law, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol.70, No.2, (2002), pp.443-462

[20] Paul D Marquardt & Mark Leddy, The Essential Facilities Doctrine and Intellectual Property Rights: A response to Pitofsky, Patterson and Hooks, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol.70, No.3, (2003), pp.847-873

[21] 410 U.S. 366 (1973)

[22] 436 U.S. 585 (1985)

[23] 194, F. 2d, 484,487 (1st Cir), cert. denied, 344, U.S. 817 (1952

[24] 326 U.S. 1 (1945).

[25] 472, U.S. 585.

[26] Ref. Case 6 and 7/1973, Commercial Solvents v. Commission 1974 ECR 223.

[27] Case 22/1978 (1979), ECR, 1869.

[28] Ref. C. 27/1976, United Brands v. Commission (1978) , ECR 207.

[29] Martin Cave & Peter Crowther, Competition Law Approaches to Regulating Access to Utilities: The Essential Facilities Doctrine, Rivisita Internazionale Di Scienze Sociali, Anno 103, No.1, Interconnection Pricing Workshop (Milan April 7-8 , 1995), pp. 141-157

[30] Case C-7/97, (1999) 4 CMLR 112

[31] B&I Line plc. V. Sealink harbors Ltd, a Commission of 11 June 1992, (1992), C.M.L.R 255 at paragraph 4.

[32] Objective justifications such as shortage of the product were accepted in Case77/77 Benezine en Petroleum Handlesmaatschappij BV v. British Petroleum (1978) ECR 1513

[33] Case T-69/89 Radio Telefis Eireaan v. Commission (1991) ECR II-485 on appeal Cases C-241P and 242/91P RTE and ITP v. Commission (1995) ECR I-743.

[34] Albertina Albros -Llorens, The Essential Facilities Doctrine in EC Competition Law, the Cambridge Law Journal, Vol.58, No.3 (Nov.,1999) , pp. 490-492.

[35] 1966, p. 570-71

[36] Gregory T Gundlack & Paul N Bloom, The Essential Facility Doctrine: Legal limits and Antitrust Considerations, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol.12, No.2 (Fall,1993), pp.156-169.

[37] Spencer Weber Waller & William Tasch, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 76, No. 3 (201), pp. 741-767.

[38] Daniel E Troy, Unclogging the Bottle neck: A New Essential Facility Doctrine, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 83, No.2, (Mar., 1983), pp.441-487.

[39] Ann Armstrong et al., The Smartphone Royalty Stack: Surveying Royalty Demands for the Components Within Smartphones, available at http://www.wilmerhale.com/uploadedFiles/Shared_Content/Editorial/Publications/Documents/The-Smartphone-Royalty-Stack-Armstrong-Mueller-Syrett.pdf (last accessed 15 May, 2015);

[40] Damien Geradin, Pricing Abuses by Essential Patent Holders in A Standard Setting Context: A View from Europe, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 76, No. 1 (2009), 329-357; Damien Geradin, Ten Years of DG Competition Effort to Provide Guidance on the Application of Competition Rules to the Licensing of Standard Essential Patents: Where Do We Stand?, http://www.law.northwestern.edu/faculty/programs/searlecenter/workingpapers/documents/Geradin_DG_Competition.pdf (last accessed 19 May, 2015).

[41] Bouthenia Guermazi and David Satola, Creating the "Right" Enabling Environment for ICT, in ROBERT SCHWARE (ED.), E-DEVELOPMENT: FROM EXCITEMENT TO EFFECTIVENESS (2005, World Bank Publications).

[42] Damien Geradin and Miguel Rato, Can Standard-Setting Lead to Exploitative Abuse? A Dissonant View on Patent Hold-up, Royalty-Stacking and the Meaning of FRAND, 3 Eur. Competition J. 101,103 (2007).

[43] Michael A. Carrier, A Roadmap to the Smartphone Patent Wars and FRAND Licensing, Competition Policy International, CPI Antitrust Chronicle April 2012 (2) at 2.

[44] Mark A Lemley and Carl Shapiro, Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking, Texas law Review, Vol.85, 2007, 1991-2050.

[45] Mark A Lemley and Carl Shapiro, A Simple Approach to Setting Reasonable Royalties for Standard Essential Patents, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Vol.28, 2013 at 1136-1137

[46] Phillipe Baechtold, IPRs and Standards Setting: Some Issues, available at http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sme/en/wipo_smes_ge_07/wipo_smes_ge_07_www_81604.ppt (last accessed 19 May, 2015) at 1

[47] Richard Schmalensee, Standard-Setting, Innovation Specialists and Competition Policy, 57(3) THE JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, 526-552 (September, 2009).

[48] Gertjan Kuipers et.al, A Further Perspective on Apple v. Samsung: How to Successfully Enforce Standard Essential Patents in the Netherlands, Berichten Industriele Eigendon, Aug. 2012, available at http://www.debrauw.com/News/Publications/Documents/artikel1_Kuipers-Groeneveld-Lamme.pdf (last accessed 21 May, 2015) at 222

[49] Leon Greenfield, et al., SEP Enforcement Disputes, Beyond the Water's Edge: A Survey of Recent Non US Decisions, Antitrust, Vol.27, No.3, 2013 at 3.

[50] Damien Neven and Miguel de la Mano, Economics at DG Competition, 2009-2010, 37(4) REVIEW OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION, 309-333 (December, 2010).

[51] Björn Lundqvist, Standardisation under EU Competition Rules and US Antitrust Laws, (2014).

[52] James E Abell, Setting the Standard: A Fraud-based approach to Antitrust pleading in standard development, 75(4) UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW 1601-1631 (2008).

[53] Koren W. Wong-Ervin, Standard-Essential Patents: The International Landscape, available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/key-speeches-presentations/standard-essential_patents_the_intl_landscape.pdf (last accessed 22 May, 2015) at 14.

[54] Ravikant Bharadwaj, Standard Setting in India: Competition Law and IP Issues, IMJ, Vol.5, 2013 at.1, 2.

[55] Anubha Sinha, Micromax Files Complaint: CCI Orders Investigation into Ericsson's FRANDLY Licensing, SpicyIP, 29 November 2013, available at http://spicyip.com/2013/11/micromax-files-complaint-cci-orders-investigation-into-ericssons-frandly-licensing.html (last accessed 22 May, 2015).

[56] Prashanth T Reddy, Interim Justice: Troubling Trend, Business Standard, 30 March 2013, available at http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/interim-justice-troubling-trend-113033000223_1.html (last accessed 23 May, 2015).

[57] Vaibhav Choukse, The Debate on Essentials, BUSINESS LINE, (March 29, 2015).

[58] John E Matheson, Patents and Standards, FRAND Challenges for India's ICT Sector, SpicyIP Discussion paper series, Paper no. 201401, 2014, available at: http://spicyip.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/FRAND-Challenges-for-Indias-ICT-Sector.pdf (last accessed 21 May, 2015) at 7

[59] Pankaj Soni and Satyoki Koundinya, Taking the FRANDLY Approach, a First Look at FRAND Battles in India, Remfry and Sagar, available at http://www.iam-media.com/Intelligence/IAM-Yearbook/2015/Country-by-country/Taking-the-FRAND-ly-approach-a-first-look-at-FRAND-battles-in-India (last accessed 21 May, 2015).

[60] Competition Commission of India, Guide to Abuse of Dominance, available at http://www.cci.gov.in/images/media/Advocacy/Awareness/Abuse_Dominance.pdf (last accessed 21 May, 2015).

[61] Samir Gandhi et al., Enforcement Trends in India under Competition Act 2002, Practical Law, 1 June 2013, available at http://uk.practicallaw.com/2-532-3777?q=&qp=&qo=&qe=#a456237 (last accessed 11 May, 2015).

[62] Pratibha Jain et.al., Competition Law in India, A Report on Jurisprudential Trends, Nishit Desai and Associates, available at http://www.nishithdesai.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/Research%20Papers/Competition_Law_in_India.pdf

[63] Archana Shanker and Shraddha Singh Chauhan, How to use Patent and Competition Law Effectively in Tandem, 1 September 2014, Managingip, available at http://www.managingip.com/Article/3382427/How-to-use-patent-and-competition-law-effectively-in-tandem.html (last accessed 20 May, 2015).

[64] Kanika Chaudhary Nayar, India: Jurisdiction of the CCI: Navigating Through Muddy Waters, 28 April 2015, Mondaq, Available at: http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/392738/Antitrust+Competition/Jurisdiction+Of+The+CCI+Navigating+Through+Muddy+Waters

[65] CUTS International, Competition Commission of India Through the Eyes of the Media: Doing Well!, 17 September 2012, available at http://www.cuts-ccier.org/pdf/Competition_Commission_of_India_through_the_eyes_of_the_media-Doing_well.pdf (last accessed 13 May, 2015) at 13.

[66] Bureau, Bill Aimed at Giving CCI More Teeth Tabled, Indian Express, 11 December 2012, Available at: http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/bill-aimed-at-giving-cci-more-teeth-tabled/1043320/

[67] Peter Alexiadis, Balancing the application of ex post and ex ante disciplines under community law in electronic communications markets: square pegs in round holes? RIGHTS AND REMEDIES IN A LIBERALISED AND COMPETITIVE INTERNAL MARKET (2012).

[68] George S Cary, Mark W Nelson et al, the case for Antitrust law to police the patent holdup problem in standard setting, 77(3) ANTITRUST LAW JOURNAL 913-945 (2011).

[69] Suzanne Michel, Bargaining for RAND Royalties in the Shadow of Patent Remedies Law, 77(3) ANTITRUST LAW JOURNAL 889-911 (2011).

[70] Anne Layne-Farrar, A Jorge Padilla and Richard Schmalensee, Pricing Patents for Licensing in Standard-Setting Organisations: Making Sense of FRAND Commitments, 74(3) ANTITRUST LAW JOURNAL 671-706 (2007).

[71] Rahul Singh, The Teeter Totter of Regulation and Competition: Balancing the Indian Competition Commission with Sectoral Regulators, Washungton University Global Studies Law Review, Vol.8, Issue 1, January 2009 at 97-102.

[72] K D Raju, The Inevitable Connection Between Intellectual Property and Competition Law: Emerging Jurisprudence and Lessons for India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol.18, No.2, 2013, at 111-122.

[73] Apoorva, Shreeja Sen, Multiple Court Stays Hold UP CCI Investigations, Livemint, 28 November 2014, available at http://www.livemint.com/Politics/5Lm7tjIuogbBsm6qRb4exH/Multiple-court-stays-hold-up-CCI-investigations.html (last accessed 23 May, 2015).

[74] Karthik Jayakumar, Bhatia v. Balco, Who Should Stand?, 18 August 2013, available at http://blog.athirtyeight.com/2013/08/bhatia-v-balco-who-should-stand.html (last accessed 22 May, 2015).

[75] Nick Robinson, Expanding Judiciaries: India and the Rise of the Good Governance Court, Washington University Global Studies Law Review, Vol.8, Issue 1, January 2009 at 21.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-project-working-document-series-document-2-literature-review-on-competition-law-ipr-access-to-100-mobile-devices-1

PERVASIVE TECHNOLOGIES PROJECT WORKING DOCUMENT SERIES: DOCUMENT 1 - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY FOR A PAPER ON COMPETITION LAW + IPR + ACCESS TO < $100 MOBILE DEVICES

nehaa — 2015-10-04T02:51:06Z

This blog post is the research methodology for my research paper under the Pervasive Technologies Project. This is a work in progress and is likely to be modified from time to time.

See a subsequent version titled Pervasive Technologies: Working Document Series - Research Questions and a Literature Review on the Actor-Network Theory

Preliminary

The realization of the promise of the sub hundred dollar mobile device as a facilitator of access to knowledge is contingent inter alia on its availability in the market place. In turn, the market availability of the sub hundred dollar mobile device is influenced by the existence of an enabling environment for producers to produce, and consumers to consume. From a regulatory perspective, the enabling environment itself is a function of existing laws and policies, and the 'developmental effects' of certain laws and policies (Saraswati, 2012).

This research paper under the Pervasive Technologies: Access to Knowledge in the Market Place Project ("PT Project") examines one such legal and policy lever and the role of a regulator in the development of an enabling environment for access to sub hundred dollar mobile devices. This paper is founded on four assumptions: first, that access to sub hundred dollar mobile devices is influenced by their price; second, that the question of access necessitates conversation between the intellectual property regime and several other actors, sites and tools; third, that one of the fundamental goals of regulatory reform is the creation of a 'stable, open and future- proof environment' (Guermazi and Satola, 2005) that encourages access to these devices; and fourth, that there exist public law implications of intellectual property that justify the involvement of State actors and regulators in matters that may arise out of private transactions.

Research Questions

This research paper will examine whether there is a role to be played by one regulator, that is, the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”), in this narrative of innovation, intellectual property and access to sub hundred dollar mobile devices. Specifically, the following research questions will be addressed:

First, what is the relationship between intellectual property and competition law? Second, what are the competition law/antitrust concerns that arise around the licensing of intellectual property (standard essential patents)? Third, can existing mechanisms in competition law address concerns around the licensing of standard essential patents on sub hundred dollar devices, and is competition law a viable solution to address this issue? If so, which ones? Fourth, given the frequency of these litigations, is there a role to be played by an ex-post regulator, such as the CCI, or is there a need for ex-ante regulation?

Research Objects

In an attempt to address these research questions, this paper will examine the role of the Competition Commission of India and the Indian Judiciary. This paper will also examine the role of similarly placed institutions in the United States of America as well as some member states of the European Union.

This research paper will also examine select tools and sites sought to be used to create an enabling environment to facilitate access to these sub hundred dollar mobile devices: first, principles, legal frameworks and provisions of competition law/antitrust law; second, all relevant judicial decisions.

Research Method

First , this research paper will begin with establishing the case for the intervention of the regulator and/or the judiciary in the sub hundred dollar mobile device market by undertaking a review of primary and secondary literature [1]("literature"). Second, also through a literature review, the research will be contextualized to India in terms of the market, the actors involved and the legal framework. Third, a cross jurisdictional comparative legal search will be undertaken to understand the potential areas of intervention for the judiciary and the Competition Commission of India based on existing legal disputes in other jurisdictions; and the possible challenges that might ensue. Fourth, in a scenario building exercise, an attempt will be made to outline the role that the judiciary and the regulator might play in India, in order to ensure access to sub hundred dollar mobile devices is not impeded by litigation around standard essential patents.

Generally, in the writing of this paper, inputs will be sought from experts including MHRD Chair Professors, legal practitioners in India, academics in India and abroad and members of relevant departments of the Indian Government.

Research Communication

This research will be communicated through a series of blog posts- one every month from December, 2014 to December, 2015. A preliminary draft of a research paper will be produced by December, 2015, tentatively to be presented at the 4th Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, New Delhi. The final output will be a research paper.

References

Bouthenia Guermazi and David Satola, Creating the "Right" Enabling Environment for ICT, in Robert Schware (ed.), E-development: From Excitement to Effectiveness (2005, World Bank Publications).
Jyoti Saraswati, Dot. Compradors- Power and Policy in the Development of the Indian Software Industry (2012, Pluto Press)

[1] Unless otherwise specified, for the purposes of this document, primary and secondary literature includes academic articles and books, newspaper articles and opinion pieces, blog posts, case law and other legal provisions.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/methodology-sub-hundred-dollar-mobile-devices-and-competition-law

People are Knowledge – Experimenting with Oral Citations on Wikipedia

praskrishna — 2012-12-14T10:26:31Z

The Centre for Internet and Society in association with the Wikimedia Foundation has produced a documentary film "People are Knowledge". The film evolved out of a project on Oral Citations in India and South Africa funded by the Wikimedia Foundation, and undertaken by Wikimedia Foundation Advisory Board Member Achal Prabhala as a short-term fellowship, to help overcome a lack of published materials in emerging languages on Wikipedia. New Delhi-based filmmaker Priya Sen has directed the film, with additional assistance from Zen Marie who handled the shooting in South Africa. The film explores how alternate methods of citation could be employed on Wikipedia, documenting a series of specific situations with regards to published knowledge, and subsequently, with oral citations.

The Problem

Imagine a world with every individual having open access to the sum of human knowledge. But there is a problem — the sum of human knowledge is far greater than the sum of printed knowledge. For example, in India and South Africa, the number of books produced every year is nowhere near to the number of books being producing in UK. There is very little citable, printed material to rely on in the indigenous languages of India or South Africa. So it is difficult for the languages of these countries to grow its own Wikipedia. While there are significant media markets for Indian languages within and outside India, there is very little scholarly publishing in any language other than English. On the other hand, South African languages with the exception of English and Afrikaans have had a largely oral existence and only in recent times have started a publishing tradition, which is in nascent stages.

Total Production of Books in UK, South Africa and India as of 2005

UK: 161,000 books / 60 million people
South Africa: 6100 books/48 million people
India: 97,000 books/1100 million people

If we were to measure books produced in 2005 per person per country, the comparison is even more glaring:

UK: 1 book per 372 people
South Africa: 1 book per 7869 people
India: 1 book per 11,371 people

Source: Wikimedia page on Research: Oral Citations. For more details see here

As a result of such disparity, everyday, common knowledge — things known, observed and performed by millions of people — do not enter Wikipedia as facts because they haven’t been written down in a reliably published source. Hence, Wikipedia in countries like India and South Africa lose out on opportunities for growth.

While we are enthused about the rise of “small language Wikipedias”, it may not happen soon. Not with the present rules at least. Even if we were to convince every single person in the South with Internet access to become an active editor on Wikipedia, there is still a problem that they are going to run up against. That problem that currently bedevils everyone working in local languages in Asia and Africa, and nobody seems to have a control over it.

For Wikipedias in languages of the South, citations aren’t a problem when the articles being added are translations (for universally important topics, reliable citations are already there in English and other European languages). Assuming, however, that we all want the sphere of knowledge to be universally expanded — and not merely translated from languages of the North to languages of the South — there are two specific problems with finding citations for important local subject matters.

Published, citable resources may simply not exist. This is not just true of Sub-Saharan African languages (many of which use Latin script, have a relatively recent written history, and small or non-existent publishing markets) but also of several South Asian languages (even though they have non-Latin scripts, a relatively ancient written history and thriving publishing markets in news and entertainment).
Even when published scholarly resources exist, they may be inaccessible and thus effectively rendered invisible to Wikipedians. Libraries and archives in India and South Africa are usually not electronically indexed. Furthermore, they are not always conveniently located, and often impose a massive bureaucratic burden on the user to search, see, borrow from or even enter.

Oral Citations as a Possible Solution

Hindi Wikipedia has over 65,000 articles, Malayalam Wikipedia has about 15,000, and Northern Sotho Wikipedia has about 600. Many of these articles — especially when concerning subjects that are specific to a particular people or place — have no citations whatsoever. Yet, an editor — often several editors — created the articles in question. How? Simply put, and barring laziness and carelessness where citations are available, the basis of fact therein is orally circulated knowledge. Even today, in several parts of the world, people are knowledge. Therefore, an exercise where oral citations are collected and assembled — in a manner not different to that by which print sources are cited on Wikipedia, i.e., with diverse viewpoints, several sources, a rationale for authenticity — might be one way to capture this knowledge in a form that is recognisable to Wikipedia.

Anthropologists have been doing this for years — in the academy, it is called field work. The average Wikipedians certainly don’t have the capacity to replicate the arduous research programme of a doctoral student but they do have common sense and access to basic telecommunication facilities. So oral citations can:

Create externally verifiable authentication for a Wikipedia article that is based on experiential facts, but lacks citations simply because no printed source has recorded these facts to date.
Add to the set of published scholarly resources that document an existing fact, for example, in cases where the published sources are archaic or primarily foreign, and thus complete existing knowledge or correct its biases.

The Experiment

Achal Prabhala worked with Wikipedians across three languages in two different countries — Malayalam (40 million speakers) and Hindi (250 million speakers) in India and Northern Sotho (5 million speakers) in South Africa to see how oral citations might be received in the language communities they can benefit, discuss this idea with Wikipedians at large, not as a final solution but as a first step in understanding how we may expand our definition of reliable sources of knowledge beyond what is published in print, and what benefits such an expansion may bring and show this is an idea that takes hold, to create a set of clearly laid-out initial templates that others can use and build upon. Four collaborators: Shiju Alex, Mayur, Mohau Monaledi and Achal Prabhala, with additional help from Vijayakumar Blathur were finalised. Parts of the experiment were then filmed as an edited documentary.

The Pitfalls

There are numerous potential pitfalls[1] the most glaring of which is the principle of ‘No original research’. Naturally, we’re going to have to find a way to justify our approach, or work around it, or expand its meaning. Several people will welcome it, several people will object on all kinds of grounds, and several others possibly misusing and misinterpreting oral citations (i.e., without care to authenticity, diversity of opinion) in their work on Wikipedia.

However, this is the right thing to do. The problem is real. The solution being presented is a first step, not a final answer. Sure, people might have a problem with it, and sure, there may be heated objections to it; but overall, if it’s the right thing to do, it should be done, however strange it seems and however unsettling it is.

After all, if the status quo had to be respected absolutely, we wouldn’t have Wikipedia.

Note

[1]On a side note, Achal says that the pitfall to the pitfall is the status quo: literally thousands of articles without any citations whatsoever, a problem that no one notices because they’re in languages that the majority of current editors on Wikipedia do not understand – and a problem which is often overlooked by language communities in the south in favour of growth.

For recorded interviews, click here

Watch the movie below:

People are Knowledge (subtitled) from Achal R. Prabhala on Vimeo.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/people-are-knowledge

Peering behind the veil of ICANN’s DIDP (I)

Padmini Baruah — 2015-10-15T02:42:14Z

One of the key elements of the process of enhancing democracy and furthering transparency in any institution which holds power is open access to information for all the stakeholders. This is critical to ensure that there is accountability for the actions of those in charge of a body which utilises public funds and carries out functions in the public interest.

As the body which “...coordinates the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions, which are key technical services critical to the continued operations of the Internet's underlying address book, the Domain Name System (DNS)”^{^[1]}, the centrality of ICANN in regulating the Internet (a public good if there ever was one) makes it vital that ICANN’s decision-making processes, financial flows, and operations are open to public scrutiny. ICANN itself echoes the same belief, and upholds “...a proven commitment to accountability and transparency in all of its practices”^{^[2]}, which is captured in their By-Laws and Affirmation of Commitments. In furtherance of this, ICANN has created its own Documentary Information Disclosure Policy, where it promises to “...ensure that information contained in documents concerning ICANN's operational activities, and within ICANN's possession, custody, or control, is made available to the public unless there is a compelling reason for confidentiality.”^{^[3]}

ICANN has a vast array of documents that are already in the public domain, listed here. These include annual reports, budgets, registry reports, speeches, operating plans, correspondence, etc. However, their Documentary Information Disclosure Policy falls short of meeting international standards for information disclosure. In this piece, I have focused on an examination of their defined conditions for non-disclosure of information, which seem to undercut the entire process of transparency that the DIDP process aims towards upholding. The obvious comparison that comes to mind is with the right to information laws that governments the world over have enacted in furtherance of democracy. While ICANN cannot be equated to a democratically elected government, it nonetheless does exercise sufficient regulatory power of the functioning of the Internet for it to owe a similar degree of information to all the stakeholders in the internet community. In this piece, I have made an examination of ICANN’s conditions for non-disclosure, and compared it to the analogous exclusions in India’s Right to Information Act, 2005

ICANN’ꜱ Defined Conditions for Non-Disclosure versus Exclusions in Indian Law :

ICANN, in its DIDP policy identifies a lengthy list of conditions as being sufficient grounds for non-disclosure of information. One of the most important indicators of a strong transparency law is said to be minimum exclusions.^{^[4]} However, as seen from the table below, ICANN’s exclusions are extensive and vast, and this has been a barrier in the way of free flow of information. An analysis of their responses to various DIDP requests (available here) shows that the conditions for non-disclosure have been invoked in over 50 of the 85 requests responded to (as of 11.09.2015); i.e., over two-thirds of the requests that ICANN receives are subjected to the non-disclosure policies.

In contrast, an analysis of India’s Right to Information Act, considered to be among the better drafted transparency laws of the world, reveals a much narrower list of exclusions that come in the way of a citizen obtaining any kind of information sought. The table below compares the two lists:

No.	ICANN^{^[5]}	India	Analysis
1.	Information provided by or to a government or international organization which was to be kept confidential or would materially affect ICANN’s equation with the concerned body.	Information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, "strategic, scientific or economic" interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offense^{^[6]}/ information received in confidence from foreign government^{^[7]}	The threshold for both the bodies is fairly similar for this exclusion.
2.	Internal (staff/Board) information that, if disclosed, would or would be likely to compromise the integrity of ICANN's deliberative and decision-making process	Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers, provided that such decisions the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over (unless subject to these exemptions)^{^[8]}	The Indian law is far more transparent as it ultimately allows for the records of internal deliberation to be made public after the decision is taken.
3.	Information related to the deliberative and decision-making process between ICANN, its constituents, and/or other entities with which ICANN cooperates that, if disclosed, would or would be likely to compromise the integrity of the deliberative and decision-making process	No similar provision in Indian Law.	This is an additional restriction that ICANN introduces in addition to the one above, which in itself is quite broad.
4.	Records relating to an individual's personal information	Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual (but it is also provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied by this exemption);^{^[9]}	Again, the Indian law contains a proviso for information with “relationship to any public activity or interest”
5.	Proceedings of internal appeal mechanisms and investigations.	Information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;^{^[10]}	While ICANN prohibits the disclosure of all proceedings, in India, the exemption is only to the limited extent of information that the court prohibits from being made public.
6.	Information provided to ICANN by a party that, if disclosed, would or would be likely to materially prejudice the commercial interests, financial interests, and/or competitive position of such party or was provided to ICANN pursuant to a nondisclosure agreement or nondisclosure provision within an agreement.	Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;^{^[11]}	This is fairly similar for both lists.
7.	Confidential business information and/or internal policies and procedures.	No similar provision in Indian Law. This is encapsulated in the abovementioned provision	This is fairly similar in both lists.
8.	Information that, if disclosed, would or would be likely to endanger the life, health, or safety of any individual or materially prejudice the administration of justice.	Information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;^{^[12]}	This is fairly similar for both lists.
9.	Information subject to any kind of privilege, which might prejudice any investigation	Information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature^{^[13]}/Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;^{^[14]}	This is fairly similar in both lists.
10.	Drafts of all correspondence, reports, documents, agreements, contracts, emails, or any other forms of communication.	No similar provision in Indian Law	This exclusion is not present in Indian law, and it is extremely broadly worded, coming in the way of full transparency.
11.	Information that relates in any way to the security and stability of the Internet	No similar provision in Indian Law	This is perhaps necessary to ICANN’s role as the IANA Functions Operator. However, given the large public interest in this matter, there should be some proviso to make information in this regard available to the public as well.
12.	Trade secrets and commercial and financial information not publicly disclosed by ICANN.	Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;^{^[15]}	This is fairly similar in both cases.
13.	Information requests: ● which are not reasonable; ● which are excessive or overly burdensome ● complying with which is not feasible ● which are made with an abusive or vexatious purpose or by a vexatious or querulous individual.	No similar provision in Indian Law	Of all the DIDP exclusions, this is the one which is most loosely worded. The terms in this clause are not clearly defined, and it can effectively be used to deflect any request sought from ICANN because of its extreme subjectivity. What amounts to ‘reasonable’? Whom is the process going to ‘burden’? What lens does ICANN use to define a ‘vexatious’ purpose? Where do we look for answers?
14.	No similar provision in ICANN’s DIDP.	Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;^{^[16]}	-
15.	No similar provision in ICANN’s DIDP.	Information which providing access to would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State.^{^[17]}	-

Thus, the net cast by the DIDP exclusions policy is more vast than even than that of a democratic state’s transparency law. Clearly, the exclusions above have effectively allowed ICANN to dodge answers to most of the requests floating its way. One can only hope that ICANN realises that these exclusions come in the way of the transparency that they are so committed to, and does away with this unreasonably wide range on the road to the IANA Transition.

^{^[1]} https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/welcome-2012-02-25-en

^{^[2]} https://www.icann.org/resources/accountability

^{^[3]} https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en

^{^[4]} Shekhar Singh, India: Grassroot Initiatives in Tʜᴇ Rɪɢʜᴛ ᴛᴏ Kɴᴏᴡ 19, 44 (Ann Florin ed., 2007)

^{^[5]} In a proviso, ICANN’s DIDP states that all these exemptions can be overridden if the larger public interest is higher. However, this has not yet been reflected in their responses to any DIDP requests.

^{^[6]} Section 8(1)(a), Right to Information Act, 2005.

^{^[7]} Section 8(1)(f), Right to Information Act, 2005.

^{^[8]} Section 8(1)(i), Right to Information Act, 2005.

^{^[9]} Section 8(1)(j), Right to Information Act, 2005.

^{^[10]} Section 8(1)(b), Right to Information Act, 2005.

^{^[11]} Section (1)(d), Right to Information Act, 2005

^{^[12]} Section 8(1)(g), Right to Information Act, 2005.

^{^[13]} Section 8(1)(c), Right to Information Act, 2005.

^{^[14]} Section 8(1)(h), Right to Information Act, 2005.

^{^[15]} Section (1)(d), Right to Information Act, 2005

^{^[16]} Section 8(1)(e), Right to Information Act, 2005.

^{^[17]} Section 9, Right to Information Act, 2005.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/peering-behind-the-veil-of-icann2019s-didp

PDF ASEAN Literature Review

pranav — 2020-03-05T17:32:20Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/pdf-asean-literature-review

Patterns of Gender Aggression and Harassment in Open Tech and Open Culture Communities Online

rohini — 2015-06-01T02:13:14Z

Report on the talk delivered by me at Adacamp held in Montreal, Canada on April 13-14, 2015.

Link to the original blog post published on Wikimedia blog can be accessed here.

I received a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation to participate in Adacamp. While the talk was pegged on my experience of working on Wikipedia's Gender gap in India, the content is equally relevant for other, open online projects, especially those that value the anonymity of its users. The talk ended with a discussion on how to identify and combat these patterns. It was a collaborative talk delivered along with Gretchen McCulloch who spoke on Wikipedia's Gender gap and Fandom. Credits to session rapporteur and participant Maja Frydrychowicz.

Gender disparity among Wikipedia's editors is well-known and well-documented.[1] [2] A survey conducted by the Wikimedia Foundation in 2011 pegged the number of female contributors to the English-language Wikipedia at 9%.[3] Several outreach, advocacy, and capacity-building efforts have been made to bridge Wikipedia's glaring gender imbalance. In the openness domain, other projects and initiatives have been making similar efforts to bring more women into the fold. To cite an example, the Outreach Program for Women endeavours to recruit more female coders in the world of open source software.

While the narrative of few women being online has changed, more in some parts of the world than in others, the next barriers of making them stay online and establishing an active presence, remain. Wikipedia, like many other open communities, has a high drop-out rate of female contributors. Many female contributors maintain identities that do not give away their gender or practise self-censorship in order to continue to be a part of the community. Several studies conducted in the past few years have attributed the gender gap to numerous reasons -- women have less time left after fulfilling their tasks at home and work; antagonistic exchanges are emotionally draining; in households where there is only one Internet-enabled device, women have access to it for a shorter time; and so on. A blog post by Sue Gardner former executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, pithily lays out why women don't edit Wikipedia.

One of the ways that outreach and advocacy can work towards retaining more contributors and enabling them to participate more fruitfully is by identifying patterns of aggression and harassment that are directed, subtly or otherwise, at them owing to their gender or sexual orientation.

What are some of the significant patterns that cause a contributor to censor themselves or leave, even if they have just joined?

Hostile environment, antagonistic exchanges: These word clouds[4][5] display name-calling experienced by female users on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's editorial model stands on building consensus and collaboration but the spirit of debate often gives way to slings and arrows, many of which would violate Wikipedia's policy of being civil to other contributors (WP:Civil) and one of the five pillars of the crowdsourced encyclopedia. Facing hostility can be emotionally draining, especially for a new contributor, and reason enough for them to avoid contributing to certain topics, to censor themselves, or to leave the platform. Verbal violence and use of language considered unacceptable as per the community rules, is one form of harassment/ violence that is relatively easy to spot and call out, and is not uncommon.
Mansplaining: is more insidious than outright hostile behaviour. The intent is not constructive criticism but to humiliate the recipient, make them feel that do not belong in the space, or drive them underground. It involves the use of what Wikipedia terms "weasel words", and dismissive and condescending speech. It is difficult to address because it is less perceptible, difficult to differentiate from advise or feedback given in good faith (WP: AssumeGoodFaith), and does not violate the guideline of not attacking newbies but explaining the matter to them (WP:DontBiteTheNewbies).
Deletionism: is the practice of reverting edits or deleting/ nominating for deletion entire pages, projects, or other content out of relatively strict adherence to policies. Deletionism is often difficult to tell apart from very strict adherence to standards. Policies are open to interpretation, and deletionists justify their position by applying certain policies and contexts that favour their stance. In the context of issues pertaining to gender or sexuality, a pattern to look out for is the same user, IP address, or an apparent sockpuppet reverting edits, making edits, and defending them in a way that makes the article less gender-sensitive and disproportionately skewed away or towards a certain gender or orientation.
Subtle Powerplay/ Microaggressions: find their way into discussion boards, mailing lists and other areas of debate and discussion. A study done by the Internet Democracy Project in India documents some of the remarks that leave women feeling they are unwelcome, that do not belong in the space, or that they are an 'imposter'. "People will not be outright abusive towards you, which is a lot I face in my job. When someone does not want you to be a part of their community, they will not abuse you because they get banned for it. They will goad and nudge you in ways to tell and make sure that you are not welcome. So they will ask you, 'Oh, so when did you learn JavaScript?' knowing that you don’t know JavaScript. Just to make you feel that only those who have learnt JavaScript have the right to be there [in the forum].”

One of the factors that inadvertently aids some of these patterns is the kind of sources that are considered reliable on Wikipedia (WP:RS). Newspapers, magazines, websites, books, and journals are considered acceptable references. These sources tend to reflect existing gender biases and structures of power. Studies conducted on the content published by newspapers, for example, have shown that news coverage about men is much higher than that about women.

As most of the attendees of the talk were not very well-acquainted with the intricacies of Wikipedia's Gender gap, I went on to explain some topics that were not explicitly related to the subject of the talk.

Initiatives to improve diversity and encourage new contributors on Wikipedia

Beginner-friendly groups such as The Tea House and the Welcoming Committee
Special Interest Groups (SIGs)
The Gender gap project
Edit-a-thons geared towards increasing gender-sensitive content on Wikipedia and correcting content with gender bias
Wikipedia tries to foster positive feedback through barnstars, Wikilove, and marking a good edit with a “thank you” or a heart icon.

How existing editors can work towards increasing diversity and encouraging new editors

Help get more women mentioned in references or citations in Wikipedia articles.
Add information about women in biographies (e.g. add the mother's name or female spouse's name in a biography article.)
One of the traits of communities that do have many women on them is that a lot of positive interaction happens in response to contributions.
Teachers can obtain support for getting students to edit Wikipedia as part of a class project.

Strategies to recruit more women editors (individuals who self-identify as women, transwomen, genderqueer, genderfluid)

Aim outreach efforts towards women who blog, or already have a presence online.
Persuade existing editors to encourage women in their family and social groups to start contributing. In the case of existing male editors, it works as the two-pronged strategy of sensitising men while empowering women.
Organise outreach events where the organisers and participants are all women/ individuals who largely self-identify as women.
Organise outreach events with gender-sensitive male editors.

Questions-Answers

What is needed to meet Wikipedia's notability criterion?

A: There are different requirements depending on the subject of the article: a book, a work of art, a public figure, an artist, a writer, and so on. There are stricter requirements for biography articles, especially those of living people. Being famous does not necessarily mean being notable in the Wikipedia context. Notability requirements end up being gendered; Wikipedia replicates the biases that are present in the offline world due to its reference structure (WP:RS)

There were several general questions from the attendees about editing Wikipedia, and about Wikipedia policies and best practices. These were answered by McCulloch and me in the last 15 to 20 minutes of the talk.

References

[1]. Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List, Naom Cohen, January 30, 2011.

[2]. WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia's Gender Imbalance, Shyong (Tony) K. Lam, Anuradha Uduwage, Zhenhua Dong, Shilad Sen, David R.Musicant, Loren Terveen, John Riedl, 2011

[3]. Women and Wikimedia survey, 2011

[4]. Research: Communicating on Wikipedia while female

[5]. Women and Wikimedia survey, 2011, Name-calling on English Wikipedia

[6]. Women and Online Abuse, Internet Democracy Project, 2013

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/patterns-of-gender-aggression-and-harassment-in-open-tech-and-open-culture-communities-online

Patented Games

sunil — 2012-03-08T12:14:22Z

Some prefer Steve Jobs, patron saint of perfection, others prefer Nicholas Negroponte, messiah of the masses. While Mr Jobs may be guilty of contributing to the digital divide, Mr Negroponte may have contributed to bridging it with his innovation: the One Laptop Per Child, also known as the $100 laptop or XO. Sunil Abraham's column was published in the Economic Times on 8 March 2012.

Much ink has been spilt celebrating the contributions of both, but if we were to judge them by utilising evidence from the market, their technologies are used by a rather thin section of the pyramid.

For this writer, however, the real heroes are entrepreneurs from China and Taiwan who make technology that is used by millions of Indians and other consumers across the globe. Sometimes it comes with domestic branding and with all the right peripherals - for example, in India, the Popkorn, which costs only Rs 6,699. It features support for two SIM cards, a receiver for analogue terrestrial television, a receiver for FM radio, a 3.2-megapixel camera, boom-box style internal speakers and, most impressively, a pica projector. It ships with a tripod stand, external speakers, a torch and a laser pointer. It is a classroom in a box. At other times, it comes as a Shanzhai clone of a branded product - for example, the Blackcherry, at one-sixth the price-point with twice the number of cameras as the Blackberry. Some Shanzhai phones support four SIM cards and ship with a spare battery.

Dual- and quad-SIM support is critical in developing countries, especially Africa, where regulation has failed to rationalise interconnection costs. Most of the global south is yet to harvest the digital dividend, so TV reception is very useful indeed. And the additional battery is invaluable for rural entrepreneurs who are not sure whether their next halt will sync with the local load-shedding schedule.

The same with the focus on audio capabilities, reflecting the communal usage patterns. Unlike many expensive big-brand phones that require purchase of additional software, these phones often have in-built support for a wide variety of proprietary and open file formats.

These products are unavailable in the US and Europe because they would be sued out of the market by rights-holders or snuffed out by enforcement activities. David Drummond, Google's chief legal officer, says "smartphones might involve as many as 2,50,000 (largely questionable) patent claims". But there are three important differences for the Indian consumer. One, many of these patents are registered in the US, Europe and Japan and, therefore, prevent others from securing those patents in other jurisdictions. But it does not prevent Indian or Chinese entrepreneurs from using the patents. Two, unlike the US patent law, the Indian Patent Act does not consider "mathematical or a business method or computer program per se or algorithms" as inventions. And three, Indian courts, unlike their US and European counterparts, are less likely to grant injunctions preventing sale or use of any device.

Patent pools are a century-old policy tool for reducing royalties and uncertainty for manufacturers and consumers. In 1917, the US government forced aircraft patent-holders, including the famous Wright Brothers, into a patent pool that allowed 60 firms to produce planes at reduced royalty costs without worrying about litigation. Since then, the US government has issued thousands of compulsory licences in many different domains. Patent pools do exist in some areas of mobile technologies such as GSM and video file formats, but more patent pools are needed.

The Chinese government has used standards policy in the past to reduce outgoing royalties on information and communication technologies. They promoted or mandated indigenous standards either as a negotiating tactic with rights-holders or to benefit from cross-licensing of domestic IP. Some standards include TD-SCDMA, as an alternative to Qualcomm's CDMA, EVD as an alternative to the DVD standard, and CBHD as an alternative to Sony's Blu-ray. The potential savings were quite significant. In the words of Ma Jun, Deutsche Bank's chief China economist, "There is almost no profit for Chinese DVD makers as they have to pay about $7 in licensing fees to foreign patent holders per DVD player, which are sold at around $20 only - both at home and abroad."

In addition to patent and standards policy, royalty caps have been used to ensure access to innovative technologies. Till the end of 2009, the Indian government had imposed a royalty cap of 5% on domestic sales and 8% on exports. If a company wanted to pay higher royalties, permission had to be secured from an inter-ministerial Project Approval Board. Between 1991 and 2009, only 8,062 approvals were granted, indicating our government was keen to reduce outgoing royalties. Policymakers could reconsider reintroducing such royalty caps for devices that cost less than $200.

(The author is with the Centre for Internet and Society)

Read the original published in the Economic Times

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/patented-games

Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products

Jorge L. Contreras, Rohini Lakshané and Paxton M. Lewis — 2018-01-23T15:09:30Z

The paper titled "Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products" has been published in the latest issue of the NYU Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law. It is one of the outputs of the Pervasive Technology project and has been authored by Prof. Jorge L. Contreras, Paxton M. Lewis, and Rohini Lakshané.

Download PDF here. The paper was published by JIPEL NYU Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law, Vol. 7 - No.1 on January 16, 2018.

Introduction
I. Patent Working Requirements
A. History of Patent Working Requirements
B. The Evolution of India’s Patent Working Requirement
1. Background
2. The Patents Act, 1970
3. India’s Current Working Requirement
C. The Indian Working Requirement and Natco Pharma Limited v. Bayer Corporation
D. Form 27 and India’s Reporting Requirement
E. Theory and Criticism of Form 27
II. Empirical Study of Indian Form 27 Disclosures in the Mobile Device Industry
A. Background: Existing Data and Studies
B. Methodology
C. Limitations
III. Findings
A. Aggregated Data – Forms Found and Missing
B. Working Status
C. Descriptive Responses
1. Working Status Not Disclosed
2. Patents Not Worked
3. Varied Interpretations of Working
4. Changes in Status
IV. Discussion and Analysis
A. Process Weaknesses
B. Non-Enforcement and Non-Compliance
C. Uncertainty Surrounding Working and Complex Products
D. Strategic Behavior
E. Opportunities for Further Study
Conclusion
Appendix

Introduction

In 2012, Natco Pharma Ltd. (“Natco”) petitioned the Indian Patent Office (“IPO”) for a compulsory license to manufacture Bayer’s patented cancer drug, Nexavar. Natco cited numerous grounds in support of its petition, including Nexavar’s high cost and limited availability in India. But along with these relatively common complaints in the global access to medicines debate, Natco raised a less typical theory; Bayer failed to “work” the patent sufficiently in India. In doing so, Natco invoked a seldom-used provision of Indian patent law that allows any person to seek a compulsory license under an Indian patent that is not actively being commercialized by its owner within three years from the issuance of the patent.

Patent working requirements exist in different forms throughout the world. Broadly speaking, to “work” a patent is to practice, in some manner, the patented invention within the country that issued the patent. While patents are seen as a means to create incentives for inventors to share their ideas, working requirements are intended to mitigate the exclusivity of patent monopolies by requiring the patent holder to disseminate its invention into the local market. The patent holder thereby imparts knowledge and skills to the local community, enhances economic growth, supports local manufacturing, and promotes the introduction of innovative new products into the local market.

While patent working requirements have existed in various jurisdictions for more than a century, working requirements have seldom been the subject of vigorous enforcement. The U.S.-Brazil dispute and the Natco case represent a revival of interest in patent working requirements. In particular, the Natco case has reintroduced questions of whether working requirements are, or should be, allowed under the TRIPS Agreement.

In prior work, Contreras and LakshanÈ have analyzed the domestic Indian patent landscape pertaining to mobile device technology. The authors now extend that work to examine the working of those patents. This Article presents a detailed case study of the Indian patent working statutes and their procedures, particularly the requirement that all patent holders file an annual form (Form 27) to demonstrate that their patents are being worked in the country. We collected and reviewed all publicly available Forms 27 in the mobile device sector to assess the completeness and accuracy of the information disclosed. We then analyzed the results to assess the robustness of India’s patent working requirement and its utility for complex information and communication-based products and technologies.

The remainder of this Article proceeds in four principal parts. Part I.A provides a brief history of patent working requirements. Part I.B describes the development of India’s current working requirements and its novel Form 27 filing requirement. Part II describes our empirical study of India’s Form 27 filings in the mobile device sector. Part III discusses our findings and analysis. We conclude with recommendations for further study and policy.

I. Patent Working Requirements

A. History of Patent Working Requirements

The origins of patent working requirements have been traced to the 1300s, when early patent privileges were granted in jurisdictions such as feudal England and the Republic of Venice, with an expectation that foreign innovators would teach the invented art to local industry. The underlying incentive for providing monopoly rights was thus tied to local industrialization. This incentive to share technology was directed not only to local citizens but, even more so, to foreign inventors. Countries issued patent privileges to encourage foreigners to migrate and develop or protect local industry by teaching their art to the local population. Local industrialization was thus considered a central means to economic development and technological advancement.

Despite these early developments, by the late 19th and early 20th centuries, developed countries’ conceptual understanding of a patentee’s obligation and its relevance to national development began to shift away from local manufacturing. As a result, in many developed countries disclosure through importation became sufficient to meet the “informational goal” of patents, particularly patents that represented improvements to existing technologies.

The 1883 Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property prohibited the automatic forfeiture of a patent for a failure to work it locally. While both developed and developing countries disputed the proper remedy for the failure to work a patent, there remained a consensus that failure to work a patent was inconsistent with the patent privilege.

A half-century later, the 1925 Hague Conference, which amended the Paris Convention, recognized the failure to work a patent as an abuse that member states could “take necessary legislative measures to prevent.” As a remedy for non-working, drafters viewed compulsory licensing of non-worked patents as more palatable than outright forfeiture. Nevertheless, forfeiture of patent rights was still permitted under the Convention, though an action for forfeiture could not be brought until two years following the issuance of the first compulsory license covering the non-worked patent.In the 1967 Stockholm amendments to the Convention, further limitations on compulsory licensing for non-working patents were introduced, notably prohibiting member states from permitting the grant of a compulsory license for failure to work until three years after the issuance of the allegedly non-worked patent.

Within the flexibilities allowed by the Convention, developing countries continued to adopt strict working requirements and to resist international requirements that favored developed countries. For example, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, developing countries proposed revisions to the Paris Convention that would have provided that mere importation did not satisfy local working requirements and to permit the expansion of sanctions for non-working beyond compulsory licensing.

The desire of developed countries for stronger international rules relating to intellectual property led to the formation of the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) in 1994, under which the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS”) Agreement was negotiated. While the TRIPS Agreement does not explicitly address patent working requirements, Article 2.1 incorporates Article 5A of the Paris Convention (i.e. the article related to compulsory licensing and the limitations on granting compulsory licenses discussed above), and Article 2.2 reinforces the existing obligations of members of the Paris Union. Additionally, Article 27.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, which establishes requirements for patentable subject matter, prohibits “discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of technology and whether products are imported or locally produced” raising a question as to whether countries with local working requirements must recognize importation as an acceptable manner of satisfying those requirements.However, Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement permits a member state to allow exceptions to the exclusive rights of a patent holder, and Article 31 allows a state to issue a “compulsory” license under one or more patents without the authorization of the patent holder “in the case of national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency or in cases of public non-commercial use.” Given these mixed signals, commentators are divided on whether, and how, the TRIPS Agreement may affect local working requirements.

To date, the only WTO dispute challenging the validity of national working requirements has been between the United States and Brazil. In 2000, the Clinton administration, responding to concerns raised by the American pharmaceutical industry, initiated a WTO dispute proceeding to challenge Brazil’s local working requirement. The United States argued that Article 68 of Brazil’s 1996 Industrial Property Law violated Articles 27(1) and 28(1) of the TRIPS Agreement for discriminating against U.S. owners of Brazilian patents whose products were imported, but not locally produced, in Brazil.

Despite the pending WTO litigation, the Brazilian Ministry of Health adopted an aggressive stance toward reducing the price of antiretroviral medications and threatened to issue compulsory licenses for the local manufacture of two such drugs, both patented by U.S. companies, if they were not discounted by 50%. In response to political and public pressures, the United States and Brazil settled the dispute before any definitive opinion was issued by the WTO.

As a British colony, India’s pre-independence patent laws were modeled largely on then-prevailing English law. India gained its independence from Great Britain in 1947 and almost immediately began to consider the adoption of patent laws reflecting emerging national goals of industrialization and economic development. Thus, in early 1948, a committee known as the Tek Chand Committee was appointed to review and reconcile India’s patent laws with its national interests. The committee’s efforts resulted in the Chand Report, which recommended the use of compulsory patent licenses to stimulate India’s industrial economy.

A second major report commissioned by the Indian government and prepared primarily by Shri Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, was issued in 1959. The Ayyangar Report suggested that India should deviate from the “unsuitable patent policies of industrialized nations” because patent regimes operate differently in developing versus developed nations. Recognizing that a significant weakness in developing nations “is that foreign patent owners do not work the invention locally,” the Ayyangar Report recommended compulsory licensing as “the remedy to redress the handicap of foreigners not working the invention locally.”

2. The Patents Act, 1970

The India Patents Act, 1970, was enacted in 1972. Among other things, it sought to address the economic repercussions resulting from foreign dominance of the patent landscape in India, as recommended by the Chand Report and the Ayyangar Report. Accordingly, Section 83 of the 1970 Act provides certain policy-driven justifications for India’s working requirements, explaining:

“that patents are granted to encourage inventions and to secure that the inventions are worked in India on a commercial scale and to the fullest extent that is reasonably practicable without undue delay; [and]

that they are not granted merely to enable patentees to enjoy a monopoly for the importation of the patented article[.]”

These provisions make clear that working a patent in India is both an important policy goal and consists of something more than importation of the patented article into India. Some additional knowledge transfer must occur so that manufacturing of other steps necessary for commercialization are carried out in India.

Following the Ayyangar Report’s recommendations, Section 84(1) of the 1970 Act provided for compulsory licensing of patents as follows:

“At any time after the expiration of three years from the date of the sealing of a patent, any person interested may make an application to the Controller alleging that the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented invention have not been satisfied or that the patented invention is not available to the public at a reasonable price and praying for the grant of a compulsory licence to work the patented invention.”

These requirements, particularly the availability of the patented article to the public at a “reasonable price,” seek to address issues raised in the debate over access to medicines, and particularly the high pricing maintained by many Western pharmaceutical firms in developing countries.

However, working of patents more generally is incorporated into the compulsory licensing regime through Section 90, which clarifies when the “reasonable requirements of the public” will be deemed not to have been satisfied. In particular, Section 90(c) specifies that, for purposes of compulsory licensing under Section 84, “the reasonable requirements of the public shall be deemed not to have been satisfied Ö if the patented invention is not being worked in the territory of India on a commercial scale to an adequate extent or is not being so worked to the fullest extent that is reasonably practicable[.]” Thus, local working of patents is tied to the public interest and has become express grounds for requesting a compulsory license in India.

In addition to giving applicants the right to seek a compulsory license under non-worked patents, the 1970 Act also gave the Controller the power to revoke a patent on the grounds that the reasonable requirements of the public were not being satisfied or the patented invention was not available to the public at a reasonable price. Under Section 89(1), any interested person could apply to the Controller for such an order of revocation no earlier than two years following the grant of the first compulsory license under the relevant patent.

3. India’s Current Working Requirement

India became a member of the World Trade Organization on January 1, 1995, also making India a party to the TRIPS Agreement. In order to reconcile the 1970 Act with the TRIPS Agreement, India amended its Patents Act in 1999, 2002, and 2005. Most relevant to this Article, the 2002 amendments modified India’s compulsory licensing and working requirements.

India’s amended Patents Act retains strong working requirements, which permit the Controller to revoke unworked patents. Section 83 of the Act, as amended in 2002, provides several additional justifications for India’s patent working requirement not contemplated in earlier versions of the Act. For example, the 2002 amendments recognize that patents are intended to support the “transfer and dissemination of technology . . . in a manner conducive [sic] to social and economic welfare.” Several of the new justifications emphasize that patents should support, and not impair, the public interest, particularly “in sectors of vital importance for socio-economic and technological development of India.”

Against this backdrop, the amended Act explicitly makes compulsory licenses available for non-worked patents. Section 89 explains that one of the “general purposes” of compulsory licenses is to ensure that “patented inventions are worked on a commercial scale in the territory of India without undue delay and to the fullest extent that is reasonably practicable.” The amended Act expanded Section 84(1), which authorizes third parties to seek compulsory licenses, to include as an express basis for seeking a compulsory license “that the patented invention is not worked in the territory of India.”

Thus, new section 84(1)(c) establishes working of a patent as an independent ground for seeking a compulsory license, in addition to the grounds under sections 84(a) and (b) that the patented technology fails to reasonably meet public needs. This approach contrasts with the original 1970 formulation, discussed above, in which non-working of a patent formed a basis for seeking a compulsory license, but only as an element of the “reasonable requirements of the public,” rather than an independent ground in itself.

Section 84(6) specifies factors that the Controller must take into account when considering an application for a compulsory license, including:

(i) the nature of the invention, the time which has elapsed since the sealing of the patent and the measures already taken by the patentee or any licensee to make full use of the invention;

(ii) the ability of the applicant to work the invention to the public advantage;

(iii) the capacity of the applicant to undertake the risk in providing capital and working the invention, if the application were granted;

(iv) as to whether the applicant has made efforts to obtain a licence from the patentee on reasonable terms and conditions and such efforts have not been successful within a reasonable period as the Controller may deem fit [i.e., not ordinarily exceeding a period of six months] . . . .

Section 84(6) appears to represent a concession to patent holders, making clear that compulsory licenses will only be granted to applicants that are able to exploit the licensed patent rights in a manner that is likely to remedy the failure of the patent holder to work the patent.

While a formal definition of working is not provided under the statute, the language of section 83 suggests that the patented invention must be manufactured locally to the extent possible and that importation would be acceptable only if local manufacturing is unreasonable. Additionally, the statutory language suggests that if importation is necessary, only the patent holder or its chosen licensees may import the patented invention. The statute also fails to establish any circumstances that may be excused from India’s patent working requirement. This omission may have been intentional, perhaps suggesting that any technology that is worth patenting in India should also be capable of being worked in India.

In short, India’s patent working requirement is intended to be taken seriously. The penalties for failing to work a patent include the issuance of a compulsory license beginning three years after patent issuance, and if that does not fulfill public requirements for the patented article, possible revocation of the patent. Moreover, there is evidence that Indian courts may be reluctant to grant injunctive relief to patent holders that do not work their patents.

C. The Indian Working Requirement and Natco Pharma Limited v. Bayer Corporation

India’s patent working requirement was featured prominently in Natco’s recent compulsory license request with respect to Bayer’s Indian patent covering sorefanib tosylate, a kidney and liver cancer drug marketed by Bayer as NexavarTM. Bayer obtained an Indian patent covering Nexavar in 2008. Despite Bayer’s estimate that more than 8,800 patients in India were eligible to take the drug, its imports were sufficient to supply only 200 patients. Moreover, Bayer priced a monthly dose of the drug at more than 280,000 Rupees (approximately US$5,608), a price unaffordable to the vast majority of Indians. In response, Natco, an Indian generic drug manufacturer, attempted to negotiate a license with Bayer to manufacture and sell Nexavar in India. However, when negotiations were unsuccessful, Natco applied to the Drug Controller General of India for regulatory approval to manufacture a generic version of Nexavar in India. The approval was granted.

Natco then petitioned the Controller of Patents under section 84 of the Patents Act for a compulsory license to manufacture a generic version of Nexavar. Natco offered several justifications in support of its application for a compulsory license, including Nexavar’s high cost and limited availability in India. In addition, Natco argued that Bayer had failed to work its patent in India within three years of its issuance, as required under section 84(1)(c) of the Patents Act. Specifically, Natco argued that “[t]he patented product is being imported into India and hence the product is not worked in the territory of India to the fullest extent that is reasonably practicable.” Additionally, Natco argued that Bayer faced “no hurdle[s] preventing [it] from working the Patent in India” because Bayer already had “manufacturing facilities in India for several products.”

Bayer responded that it actively imported Nexavar into India, which demonstrated sufficient working, and argued that India’s working requirement did not require manufacture of the patented product in India. In evaluating Natco’s petition, the Controller considered the legislature’s intent, the Paris Convention, the TRIPS Agreement, and India’s Patents Act. In view of these authorities, the Controller interpreted the term “worked” to mean that the patented invention must be manufactured or licensed within India, reasoning that “[u]nless such an opportunity for technological capacity building domestically is provided to the Indian public, they will be at a loss as they will not be empowered to utilise [sic] the patented invention, after the patent right expires.” Under this interpretation, the Controller concluded that Bayer had not worked its patent in India since importation is not sufficient to constitute “working” a patent. Accordingly, in 2012 the Controller issued a compulsory license to Natco under Bayer’s patent covering Nexavar.

Bayer unsuccessfully appealed the Controller’s decision to the Indian Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The IPAB affirmed the Controller’s decision, but disagreed with the Controller’s interpretation of the term “worked.” Instead of ruling that working categorically excludes importation of the patented product into India, the IPAB concluded that determining whether a patented invention is worked must be considered on a case-by-case basis. Thus, the term “worked” does not necessarily exclude importation, but it also does not strictly require manufacturing in India.

In affirming the decision of the IPAB, the Bombay High Court opined that “[m]anufacture in all cases may not be necessary to establish working in India[.]” However, the court implied that working a patent without local manufacture could be a high hurdle to clear, reasoning that the patent holder must then “establish those reasons which makes it impossible/prohibitive for it to manufacture the patented drug in India.” It is only when the patent holder satisfies the authorities that “the patented invention could not be manufactured in India” that it can be considered worked by import.

Apart from the working requirement, the Bombay court focused on whether Bayer had reasonably satisfied the requirements of the public, recognizing that those requirements might differ depending on the type of product covered by the patent. Thus, when assessing whether demand for the patented article was met to an “adequate extent,” the considerations pertaining, for example, to a luxury article would vary significantly from those pertaining to a lifesaving medicine. In the case of medicines, the court reasoned, meeting public demand to an adequate extent should be deemed to mean it is available to 100% of the market: “Medicine has to be made available to every patient and this cannot be deprived/sacrificed at the altar of rights of [the] patent holder.”

Following Natco’s successful application for, and defense of, its compulsory license, other generic drug manufacturers sought compulsory licenses to manufacture patented pharmaceutical products in India. For example, in 2013, BDR Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., an Indian manufacturer, filed an application for a compulsory license to manufacture Bristol Myers Squibb’s anti-cancer drug dasatinib (marketed as SprycelTM), and the Indian Ministry of Health recommended that the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) grant local manufacturers compulsory licenses for trastuzumab, a breast cancer drug marketed by Roche (HerclonTM) and Genentech (HerceptinTM) and ixabepilone (Roche’s IxempraTM). To date, each of these petitions has failed for various reasons other than that pertaining to dasatinib, which remains under consideration by DIPP.

D. Form 27 and India’s Reporting Requirement

The Indian patent working requirement under Section 84 of the Patents Act, as well as the availability of compulsory licenses for non-worked patents, is not unique to India, and other developing countries have adopted similar legal requirements. India has, however, enacted what appears to be a unique reporting structure associated with its patent working requirement. India adopted a form submission requirement as a means to regulate the patent working requirement under the India Patents Act in 1970.Specifically, section 146(2) of the Patents Act provides that:

every patentee and every licensee (whether exclusive or otherwise) shall furnish in such manner and form and at such intervals (not being less than six months) as may be prescribed statements as to the extent to which the patented invention has been worked on a commercial scale in India.

In support of this statutory requirement, the patent rules adopted by the Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry provide that the required statements of working must be submitted in a prescribed format (Form 27). The rules also provide that such statements must be furnished to the Controller of Patents in respect of every calendar year within three months following the end of such year.

Form 27, a template of which is appended to the 2003 version of the Indian patent rules, requires the patent holder to disclose “the extent to which the patented invention has been worked on a commercial scale in India.” To that end, Form 27 requires that the patent holder complete the following information:

The patented invention:

(i) { } Worked { } Not worked [Tick (✓) mark the relevant box]

a. if not worked: reasons for not working and steps being taken for the working of the invention.

b. if worked: quantum and value (in Rupees), of the patented product:

manufactured in India

imported from other countries (give country wise details)

(ii) the licenses and sub-licenses granted during the year;

(iii) state whether the public requirement has been met partly/adequately/to the fullest extent at reasonable price.

Under Section 122, failing to submit a Form 27 or providing false information on the form may lead to a significant fine, imprisonment, or both.

Though India’s working requirement first appeared in the Patents Act in 1970, it appears to have been ignored until around 2007. In 2007, the Controller first mentioned the local working of patented inventions in his annual report. The reports provided by the Controller between 2007 and 2009 indicate that, on average, less than 15 percent of Indian patents were being worked commercially. In 2009, 2013 and 2015, the Controller issued public notices calling on patent owners to comply with their obligations to file statements of working on Form 27.

While the penalties for failing to furnish information via Form 27 are steep, potentially resulting in fines or imprisonment, local critics claim that many patent holders fail to make the required filings and that the Indian government has never taken meaningful action to penalize this non-compliance.

On February 12 2013, the Indian Patent Office announced plans to make Form 27 submissions for the year 2012 available to the public via the IPO website. As discussed in Part II.A below, that effort has been met with limited success.

E. Theory and Criticism of Form 27

There is little legislative or administrative history explaining the genesis of India’s unique Form 27 requirement. On one hand, a requirement that the details of patent working be disclosed by patent holders supports the goal of making unworked patents available for compulsory licensing in India, both to promote economic development and public access to patented products. A public registry of Forms 27 could also shift enforcement of India’s working requirement from the IPO and Controller to private sector entities with the greatest incentive to monitor the working of patents in their respective industries. This shift could relieve India’s resource-strapped administrative agencies of a potentially significant policing function, one that it does not appear they were actively enforcing in any event.

However, it is not clear that these goals are well served by the current Form 27 framework, which has been criticized by a number of local commentators. For example, the IPAB ruled in Natco that the term worked must be decided on a case-by-case basis. How, then, should patent holders answer the first question posed in Form 27 and its sub-questions? How is a patent holder to know whether importation or licensing in a certain case will qualify as working a patent in India? If the Form is intended to increase transparency and certainty regarding the working of patents in India, it is hindered in so doing by the lack of a formal definition of working. This lack of clarity affects both patent holders, who are less able to order their affairs so as to comply with statutory working requirements, as well as potential compulsory licensees, who lack a clear assurance of when a compulsory license petition will be successful.

Commentators have raised a variety of additional critiques of the Form 27 framework. The U.S.-based Intellectual Property Owners Association, in a formal 2014 submission to the U.S. Trade Representative, has referred to the Form 27 process as “highly burdensome” and warns that the information disclosed in publicly-accessible forms could “result in even greater pressure on Indian authorities to compulsory license [patented] products.”Moreover, the association argues that Form 27 does not adequately recognize that some patents may be practiced by multiple products, or that multiple patents may be practiced by a single product. Thus, it may be unrealistic for patent holders to attribute a “specific commercial value” to specific patented features of complex technologies.

Additionally, a number of Indian practitioners have raised concerns that the public disclosure of confidential plans for working patents through Form 27 may jeopardize or destroy valuable trade secrets and proprietary information. This threat could cause patent holders to disclose as little specific or valuable information as possible in their Form 27 filings, a result that is suggested by the findings discussed in Part III below.

Based on studies of filed Forms 27, Professor Shamnad Basheer, has concluded that India’s local working Form 27 submission requirements are not being taken seriously, particularly by international pharmaceutical companies. As a result, in 2015 Professor Basheer initiated public interest litigation in the High Court of Delhi against the Indian government for failure to comply with India’s patent laws. The suit seeks a judicial order compelling the Indian government “to enforce norms relating to the disclosure of ‘commercial working’ of patents by patentees and licensees” and to take action “against errant patentees and licensees for failure to comply with the mandate.” In 2016 an Indian patent attorney, Narendra Reddy Thappeta, filed an application to intervene in Basheer’s public interest suit, among other things, in order to raise issues regarding the difficulty of complying with Form 27 requirement for information and communication technology providers.

Despite its perceived problems, Form 27 has proven useful in Indian proceedings. Notably, the information disclosed in Bayer’s Form 27 filings played an important role in the Natco case by helping to establish the low number of patients having access to the drug. Basheer refers to the working requirement as “a central pillar of the Indian patent regime” and views the disclosure requirements of Form 27 as essential tools to ensure that needed information is made public.

II. Empirical Study of Indian Form 27 Disclosures in the Mobile Device Industry

In order to gain a better understanding of India’s patent working requirement, particularly patent holders’ compliance with the statutory requirement to declare information about the working of their patents through Form 27, we conducted an empirical study of all available Form 27 submissions for Indian patents in the mobile device sector. In this Part, we describe the objectives, background and methodology of this study.

A. Background: Existing Data and Studies

Every year, the Controller publishes an Annual Report containing statistics relating to patent filings in India. Since 2010, this report has contained data relating to Form 27 filings. This data indicates that a significant number of patent holders fail to file Form 27 as required. Below is a summary of this data as derived from the Controller’s Annual Reports from 2010 to 2016:

Table 1

Indian Controller of Patents Form 27 Filing Data (2010-2016)

Under the Patents Act, a Form 27 must be filed every year with respect to every issued patent in India. Accordingly, the discrepancy between the number of patents in force for a given year and the number of Forms 27 filed likely indicates non-compliance with the filing requirement. Interestingly, it appears that instances of non-compliance dropped noticeably in years immediately after the Controller issued its public reminders to file Form 27 in December 2013, February 2013 and early 2015. Even so, compliance has not been complete even in these years.

As noted above, Professor Shamnad Basheer has conducted two studies of Form 27 compliance in India. The first study, released in April 2011, focused on the pharmaceutical sector. The researchers selected seven pharmaceutical products directed at either cancer or hepatitis, all of which were subject either to Indian litigation or patent office oppositions and were patented in India between 2006 and 2008. They then collected Form 27 filings relating to each of these patents through a series of Right to Information (RTI) petitions to the Indian Patent Office (IPO). Based on the Forms produced by the IPO in response to these requests, the researchers found significant non-compliance with Form 27 filing requirements: some firms failed to file forms in some years, while some forms that were filed were incomplete.

Professor Basheer’s second study had a broader scope, covering a total of 141 patents: 52 patents held by 13 firms in the pharmaceutical sector, 52 patents held by 7 firms in the telecommunications sector, and 37 patents held by 4 institutions which are claimed to have arisen from publicly-financed research. The researchers used series of RTI petitions to collect a total of 263 Forms 27 corresponding to these patents filed between 2009 and 2012.

Based on a total of 141 patents, full compliance with Form 27 filing requirements would have yielded 423 Forms 27 over the three-year period studied. The total of 263 Forms identified indicates a non-compliance ratio of approximately 38%, assuming that all filed forms were produced by the IPO. A review of the reported data indicates that some firms, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector, were assiduous in filing Forms 27. For example, Genentech and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, with two patents each, each filed six Forms 27, suggesting full compliance. Other firms, however, fell far short of this measure. Apple, for example, with four patents, filed only one Form.

In addition to raw filing statistics, Prof. Basheer investigates the quality of the disclosures made in individual Forms 27. He finds that significant numbers of filed Forms “were grossly incomplete, incomprehensible or inaccurate.” For instance, numerous forms failed to indicate how patents were being worked or the quantity, value or place of manufacture of patented products as required by the Form. In addition, of forty-two Forms that disclosed non-working of a patent, twenty-eight (65%) failed to offer any reason for non-working. Though the raw data underlying these conclusions does not appear to be publicly available, choice excerpts from a few Forms are offered.

While the prior studies cited above suggest that there are substantial non-compliance issues with Form 27 practice in India, additional data is required to develop a more complete understanding of this issue. The Controller’s annual report data is provided only at a gross level and lacks any detail regarding compliance. Prof. Basheer’s pioneering studies, while first alerting the public to the problems of non-compliance, cover only small, non-random samples of patents and end prior to the general online availability of Forms 27.

B. Methodology

In this study, we sought to assess annual Form 27 submissions across a comprehensive set of patents and a substantial time frame. To do so, we utilized a set of 4,052 Indian patents identified by Contreras and LakshanÈ as of February 2015 in a prior study of the Indian mobile device patent landscape (Landscape Study). Another 367 patents pertaining to mobile device technology, which were not included in the original Landscape Study, were also identified by an independent contracted search firm. In the aggregate, we analyzed 4,419 Indian patents issued as of February 2015 in the mobile device sector, which we believe to represent the large majority of issued Indian patents in this sector as of the date selected.

We identified Form 27 filings with respect to each such patent through searches of two public online databases maintained by the Indian Patent Office: Indian Patent Advanced Search System (“InPASS”) and Indian Patent Information Retrieval System (“IPAIRS”). We manually eliminated duplicate results obtained from these two databases.

Our initial searches in 2015 yielded Form 27 submissions for only 1,999 out of 4,419 patents. These searches yielded no Forms 27 for some firms known to be significant patent holders in the mobile devices industry. To attempt to locate the missing forms, LakshanÈ, through the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), submitted two formal requests to the IPO located in Mumbai under the Indian Right to Information (“RTI”) Act of 2005. The first RTI application was submitted on June 10, 2015, requesting Form 27 information for over 800 patents. On June 17, the IPO replied with generic instructions on how to find Form 27 submissions online. A second RTI application was filed on March 11, 2016. The second request sought Form 27 filings pertaining to 61 of the remaining patents. These 61 patents were selected to represent a sample of patents held by the full cross-section of patent holders identified in the Landscape Study. In April 2016, the IPO replied that, due to internal resource constraints, it could only provide CIS with Forms 27 for eleven (11) of the requested patents.

Nevertheless, a few days after IPO’s reply, Form 27 submissions pertaining to patents in the Landscape Study started appearing on InPASS and IPAIRS. We repeated the search for Forms 27 corresponding to all 4,419 patents in our dataset in August 2016 and obtained a total of 4,935 Forms 27 corresponding to a total of 3,126 patents (an increase of 1,127 patents over the initial search).

All Forms 27 that we accessed were downloaded as PDF files or original image files and manually entered into a text-searchable spreadsheet maintained at CIS. All information from the Forms 27 was transcribed into the spreadsheet, including all textual descriptions of patent working and licensing. The results were then analyzed as described in Part III.A below.

C. Limitations

The present study was limited by the technical capabilities of the IPO’s online Form 27 repository. As described above, we found significant gaps in posted Forms 27 in our initial search, and it took a formal RTI application to spur the IPO to upload additional forms. Yet, we still identified 1,400 fewer Forms 27 than issued patents in the mobile devices category. The degree to which these missing forms arise from abandoned or expired patents, or additional failures of the IPO to upload filed forms, is unclear. Other than the IPO web site, there is no practical way to identify or access Forms 27 filed with the IPO. Technical issues with the InPASS and IPAIRS databases were constant challenges during this study. The databases were frequently unavailable, produced conflicting results, and were subject to numerous runtime errors and failures.

Despite these technical challenges, we believe that we have identified a large segment of filed Forms 27 covering Indian patents held by all major patent holders in the mobile device sector. We hope that this study will further encourage the IPO to improve the regularity and reliability of its Form 27 database.

III. Findings

In this Section, we describe the findings of our empirical collection analysis of Forms 27 pertaining to Indian patents in the mobile device sector.

A. Aggregated Data ñ Forms Found and Missing

As noted above, we used a dataset comprising 4,419 Indian patents in the mobile device sector issued as of February 2015. Of these, at least 107 patents were likely expired prior to the date on which a Form 27 would have been filed, leaving 4,312 patents for which at least one Form 27 could have been filed.

We were able to identify and obtain a total of 4,916 valid Forms 27which corresponded to 3,126 of these patents, leaving 1,186 Indian patents for which a Form 27 could have been filed, but was not found. This total represents 27.5% of the patents for which at least one Form 27 could have been filed: a significant portion of the total number of patents in the field, and within the general range of missing Forms identified by both the Controller and Basheer (2015).

Based on the year of grant of each of the 4,312 patents identified in the mobile device sector as to which a Form 27 could have been filed, we determined that a total of 24,528 Forms 27 should have been filed with respect to these patents. This figure represents the sum of total Forms 27 that could have been filed for each such patent, which ranges from a low of one to a high of eight Forms 27 per patent. In our sample, no single patent was associated with more than five Forms 27. As noted above, we obtained a total of 4,935 Forms 27 filed with respect to 3,126 patents, representing only 20.1% of the total Forms 27 that should have been filed and made available with respect to the 4,312 patents studied. Figure 1 below compares the number of Forms 27 filed in each year since 2009 with the number of Forms 27 that should have been filed each year based on the number of mobile device patents in force from year to year.

Figure 1

Actual vs. Required Form 27 Filings, by year (based on number of mobile device patents in force)

As shown in Figure 1, Form 27 filings have fallen well below the required number every year. In 2009, the first year in which Forms 27 were filed in any numbers, only 36 Forms were filed, representing only 2.8% of the 1,302 Forms that should have been filed based on the number of mobile device patents in force that year. By 2013, the number of Forms filed rose to 2,389, representing 70.7% of the 3,379 Forms that should have been filed. This ratio declined again in 2014 to 1,392 Forms out of a total of 3,639 (38.3%). Data for 2015 and 2016 are likely incomplete given the February 2015 cutoff for patents in our study. We also expect that many of the 1,186 “missing” Forms 27 were filed more recently and have not yet been uploaded by the IPO in a searchable format.

One possible explanation for the beginning of filings in 2009 and the significant jump in filings in 2013 may be the Controller’s public notifications of the need to file Forms 27 in 2009 and 2013.

Figure 2 below illustrates the number of issued patents in the mobile device sector for which Forms 27 were found and missing, categorized by patent holder (assignee). Complete data is contained in the Appendix, Table A1.

Figure 2

Forms 27 (Identified and Missing) Per Assignee

As shown in Figure 2, missing Forms 27 were distributed among most holders of Indian patents in the mobile device sector. Of the 40 firms identified as holding issued mobile device patents, Forms were missing for 37 of these (92.5%). In most cases, more Forms 27 were found than missing. In a few cases, however (most notably Philips), more Forms 27 were missing than found. In the case of four large patent holders (Qualcomm, Siemens, Philips and Samsung), more than 100 Forms 27 were missing. Forms 27 were missing for patents with issuance dates ranging from 2004 to 2015.

There are several possible reasons that Forms 27 may not have been identified for all issued Indian patents. One possibility, is non-compliance by the patent holder. This is likely the case with respect to the early years (2009-2010), when filing requirements were not yet normalized. However, in more recent years, the following factors suggest that patent holder non-compliance is not a significant cause of missing Forms 27 in the IPO database: (1) Forms 27 were missing for nearly all patent holders across the board, (2) large patent holders filed hundreds of Forms 27 and were clearly aware of their filing requirements, (3) the incremental cost of filing Forms 27 is minimal, and (4) in most cases, large patent holders simply copy text from one form to another (not in itself ideal, see below), requiring little incremental effort to file additional forms. Rather, given our experience with IPO during this study (see Methodology, above), we expect that the missing forms are due largely to the IPO’s failure to upload Forms 27 to its web site in a timely and reliable manner, and the dropping of Forms 27 once uploaded.

B. Working Status

As noted above, we reviewed 4,935 Forms 27 filed with respect to 3,126 patents in the mobile device sector. Figure 3 below illustrates the number of patents for which Forms 27 were filed and which the assignee designated that the patent was worked versus not worked (or, in a few cases, made no indication of working status).

Figure 3

Working Status, by Assignee

These results suggest that different patentees have developed significantly different strategies regarding their Form 27 filings. For example, Qualcomm, the largest holder of patents in the mobile device sector (1,298 patents, 993 of which have associated Forms 27), represents that nearly all of its patents (986, 99.3%) are being worked. Samsung, on the other hand, holds the second-highest number of patents (551 patents, 430 of which have associated Forms 27). Yet Samsung claims that it is working only 12 of its patents (2.3%). Clearly, these two patentees are employing different strategies regarding the declaration of working. A glance at Figure 3 suggests that some patentees such as RIM (now renamed Blackberry) follow Qualcomm’s approach of declaring most patents to be worked, while others (Ericsson, LG, Motorola, Panasonic, Philips, Siemens) follow Samsung’s approach and declare most patents not to be worked.

Of course, one might reason that there may be some difference between the patents themselves, and that the patentees’ declarations may simply reflect the fact that some firms’ patents are used more pervasively in India. This conjecture, however, is unlikely. Most of the patentees studied are large multinationals whose patents cover the same products. Many of these patents are declared as essential to the same technical standards. Moreover, given the generally ambiguous evidence proffered by patentees supporting their designated working status (see Part III.C, below), we doubt there are substantial enough differences among the patentees’ portfolios to account for the significant divide in declarations of working status.

C. Descriptive Responses

As noted above, Form 27 requires the patentee to disclose whether or not a patent is being worked in India. If so, the patentee must disclose the number and amount of revenue attributable to products covered by the patent that are manufactured in India and are imported from other countries. If the patent is not being worked, the patentee must explain why and describe what steps are being taken to work the invention. In both cases, the patentee must also identify licenses and sublicenses granted and state how it is meeting public demand for products at a reasonable price.

As first observed by Basheer, there is widespread non-compliance with these reporting and disclosure requirements. We largely confirm this result. Below is a summary of our findings with respect to the descriptive responses for the 4,935 Forms 27 that we reviewed.

1. Working Status Not Disclosed

For a surprising number of Forms 27 (95 or 3%), the working status of the relevant patent was not designated (i.e., neither the box for “worked” nor “not worked” was checked by the patentee). Table 1 below shows the patentees that filed Forms 27 in this manner.

Table 1

Forms 27 Failing to Disclose Working Status

Clearly, these sophisticated multinational firms understood the filing requirements for Form 27 and, in most cases, filed additional Forms 27 that did indicate whether the relevant patent was or was not being worked. Thus, the principal reason for filing a Form 27 without designating its working status appears to be the patentee’s uncertainty regarding the patent’s working status in India.

Illustrating this point, Motorola declares in several of its Forms of this nature that “[i]t is not possible to determine accurately whether the patented invention has been worked in India or not, due to the nature of the invention.” While Motorola fails to explain how “the nature of the invention” makes it impossible to determine whether or not the patent is being worked, it uses this litany in most of its Forms 27 that fail to disclose working status. Ericsson adopts a slightly different approach, stating that while it is actively seeking opportunities to work the patent, there may have been some uses of the patented technology. Thus, again, it is uncertain whether the patent is being worked or not. Presumably, these patentees felt that it was preferable to file an incomplete, rather than incorrect, Form 27.

Interestingly, most patentees never revised their working non-designations over the years. Thus, if a patent was not designated as worked or not worked in the first year a Form 27 was filed, subsequent filings for that patent typically duplicated the language of prior years’ filings. One exception appears to be Google, which acquired Motorola’s patent portfolio in 2012. For Indian Patent No. 243210 issuing in 2010, Motorola filed Forms 27 in 2010 and 2011 without indicating whether or not the patent was worked. However, in 2013, Google/Motorola filed a Form 27 for the same patent indicating that it was not worked.

Google has elected to opt for non-working when it is uncertain of the working status of a patent. For example, the following qualified language is used in several Forms in which Google indicates that a patent is not being worked:

Based on a reasonable investigation, it is Google’s belief that the patent has not been worked in India. The uncertainty arises because Google’s products and services are covered by numerous patents belonging to Google’s very large worldwide patent portfolio, and Google does not routinely keep track of which individual patent is being employed in Google’s products and services. The present statement is being filed on the basis of Google’s current estimation, but Google requests opportunities to revise the statement, should it transpire at a later date that the patent is being worked contrary to their present belief.

2. Patents Not Worked

We examined a total of 2,380 Forms 27 that indicated the relevant patents were not being worked. If a patent is specified as not being worked, the patentee must disclose the reasons for the failure to work the patent, and describe what steps are being taken to work the invention.

In a small number of cases, the patentee offered some plausible explanation for non-working of the patent. The most common of these, claimed by in Ericsson in thirty-six Forms 27, was that the underlying technology was still under development, making working impossible, at least until that development was completed. In a handful of other Forms 27 (6), Ericsson and Nokia have claimed that a patent was not being worked because it covered a technology awaiting approval or endorsement by a standards body. In the vast majority of cases, however, no explanation is offered as to why a particular patent is not being worked.

With respect to disclosure of the patentees’ plans for working a non-worked patent, most simply include stock language stating that they are “actively seeking” or “on the lookout for” commercial working opportunities in the future. Alcatel-Lucent adopted an even more passive and non-specific stance toward its plans to work patents, stating in numerous Forms 27 (applicable to 29 patents) that “as and when there is a specific requirement, the patent will be worked.”

3. Varied Interpretations of Working

We reviewed 2,425 Forms 27 that listed the subject patent as being worked. In such cases, the patentee must disclose the number and amount of revenue attributable to products covered by the patent, whether manufactured in India or imported from other countries. A tiny percentage of the Forms 27 that we reviewed provided this information in the form requested. As we discuss in our conclusions, below, it is likely that the format of the required response is simply unsuitable for complex products such as mobile devices. Below we summarize and classify the types of responses that patentees offered regarding the working of their patents.

a. Specific Information ñ Very few Forms 27 actually provide the specific product volume and value information required by the Form. The only patentee that provided the specific information required by Form 27 was Panasonic, which, with respect to the only two patents that it claimed to work (of a total of 66 Indian patents as to which a Form 27 was found), listed specific product volumes and values.

Other patentees disclosed specifics regarding the technical details of their worked patents, but declined to provide product volume and value information. For example, Ericsson discloses: “the stated patent covers a specific detail of data transmission to a mobile in a GSM or WCDMA mobile network where said transmission of data is not performed if the mobile has not enough battery capacity left for the transfer.” Ericsson goes on, however, to explain that because this patented technology is intended to be used in conjunction with other patented technologies, it is not possible to provide the financial value of the worked patent “in isolation.” Oracle also adopts this approach of offering specific product information, while declining to estimate associated sales volume or revenue.

b. Relevance to a Standard ñ In several cases, a patentee describes its patented invention by reference to an industry standard. For example, Nokia-Siemens utilize the following description for one patent that is allegedly worked: “Invention relevant for IEEE 802.16-2009 and IEEE 802.16-2011 standard.” While the patentee offers no additional information regarding the working of the patent, the desired implication, presumably, is that the patent covers an aspect of the standard, and if the standard is implemented in products sold in India (as it likely is), then the patent is thereby worked.

Some patentees offer less specific information regarding the standards that their patents cover. For example, Ericsson states in one Form that “This patent is essential for a 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) standard and Ericsson is also, subject to reciprocity, committed to make its standard essential patents available through licensing on fair, reasonable and Non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.” In this formulation, the patentee appears both to be implying working of the patent by virtue of the implicit inclusion of the standard in Indian products, and also to be making known its willingness to enter into licenses in the future on FRAND terms. This future-looking perspective, however, is not responsive to the information called for by Form 27 for patents that are allegedly being worked, and implies that the patent is not, in fact, being worked yet in India.

c. Indian Licensees ñ Some licensees, Qualcomm in particular, disclose that they have licensed their patents to Indian firms. These licenses are disclosed in Qualcomm’s Forms 27 for various patents. However, it is not clear what manufacturing or other activity is carried out by these Indian licensees. Ericsson, which has been engaged in litigation with numerous Indian and Chinese vendors of mobile devices in India, reports that it is receiving royalties from at least two of these entities under court order, though it stops short of stating that these entities are licensed under Ericsson’s patents.

d. Worldwide Licensees ñ In addition to Indian licensees, Qualcomm discloses that, as of 2014, it had granted worldwide CDMA-related patent licenses to more than 225 licensees around the world, and that CDMA-based devices were imported into India from “countries such as Canada, China, Finland, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United States.” While Qualcomm is not specific regarding the linkage, if any, between its worldwide licensees and mobile devices sold in India, it reports that more than 37.7 million CDMA-based mobile devices were sold in India in 2014 at an average price of USD $161.94. And though not express, the implication of these data is that all CDMA-based mobile devices sold in India somehow utilize Qualcomm’s patented technology.

The granting of worldwide licenses raises an interesting question regarding local working of patents. As Ericsson (which claims to have executed more than 100 patent licensing agreements) explains, its global licensees are, by definition, licensed in every country, including India. Because their global license agreements “are operational in India”, the licensees are theoretically authorized to work Ericsson’s patents in India. But it is not clear that this means that the patents are actually being worked in India. Simply granting a worldwide patent license does not mean that the licensed patent is being worked, just as the issuance of a patent in a country does not mean that the patent is being worked in that country.

e. Too Big to Know ñ Some patentees claim that they or their patent portfolios are simply too vast to determine how particular patents are being worked in India, or the number or value of patented products sold in India. Nokia, for example, uses the following language in 82 separate Form 27 filings: “Nokia’s products and services are typically covered by tens or hundreds of the nearly 10,000 patents in Nokia’s worldwide portfolio. Nokia does not keep records of which individual patents are being employed in each of Nokia’s products or services, and is therefore unable to report the quantum and value of its products or services which employ the patented invention.”

In a similar vein, Ericsson notes that its patented technologies are intended to be used in combination with a large number of other technologies patented by Ericsson and others. Accordingly, “it is close to impossible to prove an indication of specific or even close to accurate financial value of the said patent in isolationÖ” This said, Ericsson goes on to disclose its total product sales in India (3.09 billion SEK in 2013) and also notes that it earns revenue from licensing its patents (without disclosing financial data).

f. On the Lookout ñ Curiously, some patentees that claim to be working their patents use the same language regarding their search for working opportunities as they and others use with respect to non-worked patents. For example, Ericsson makes this statement regarding some of the patents that it is allegedly working in India: “The patentee is in the lookout for appropriate working opportunities in a large scale although there may have been some use of the patented technology in conjunction with other patented technologies.” This language is uncertain and does not seem to support a claim that, to the patentee’s knowledge, the patent is actually being worked. At best, it expresses optimism toward the possibility of finding an opportunity to work the patent in the future.

g. Information Provided Upon Request ñ Some patentees decline to provide any information about the working of their patents in Forms 27, but offer to provide this information if requested (presumably by a governmental authority). Some patentees further explain their hesitation to provide this information in Form 27 on the basis that the information is confidential, but commit to provide it if requested.

h. Corporate PR ñ Some patentees, in addition to, or in lieu of, providing information about their patents, offer general corporate information of a kind that would often be found in corporate press releases and annual reports. For example, Research in Motion offers this glowing corporate report in lieu of any information about its allegedly worked patents:

Patentee is a leading designer, manufacturer and marketer of innovative wireless solutions for the worldwide mobile communications market. Through the development of integrated hardware, software and services that support multiple wireless network standards, the patentee provides platforms and solutions for seamless access to time-sensitive information including email, phone, SMS messaging, internet and intranet-based applications. Patentee’s technology also enables a broad array of third party developers and manufacturers to enhance their products and services with wireless connectivity. Patentee’s portfolio of award-winning products, services and embedded technologies are used by thousands of organizations around the world (including in India) and include the Blackberry wireless platform, the RIM Wireless Handheld product line, software development tools, radio-modems and software/hardware licensing agreements.

RIM then goes on to explain that it has so many patents that identifying how the instant patent is worked in India is impossible (see “Too Big to Know” above).

Ericsson likewise offers a bit of self-serving corporate history in twenty-eight different Forms 27 in which it states:

Ericsson’s history in India goes back 112 years during which period Ericsson has contributed immensely to the telecommunication field in India. Ericsson provides, maintains and services network for several major government and private operators in India. At present, Ericsson has more than 20,000 employees across 25 offices in India. Further, Ericsson has established manufacturing units, global service organization and R&D facilities in India…

i. Just Don’t Know ñ Some patentees simply assert that they are unable to determine information regarding working of their patents, without any explanation why. Alcatel-Lucent, for example, offers the following unsatisfying disclosure with respect to the eight patents that it claims to be working in India: “The patentee is unable to particularly determine and provide with reasonable accuracy the quantum and value of the patented invention worked in India, including its manufacture and import from other countries during the year 2014.”

j. No Description ñ Some patentees simply omit to provide any information whatsoever regarding the working of their patents, even when patents are allegedly worked.

4. Changes in Status

While some of the “boilerplate” responses provided by patentees in their filed Forms 27 might suggest that patentees give little thought to the content of Form 27 filings, we identified a small but non-trivial number of patents (4.1%) as to which the patentee changed the working status, either from worked to not worked, or vice versa. Overall, we identified 128 instances in which the working status of a patent was changed from one year to the next. Of these, 51 went from worked to not worked, and 77 went from not worked to worked. Such changes suggest that patentees give at least some thought to the manner in which they work their patents, and seek to correct inaccurate disclosures, though these observed variances could also be attributed to changes in law firm, changes in interpretation of filing requirements or mere clerical errors and inconsistencies in filings from year to year.

In 17 cases, the status of the same patent changed twice over the course of three or more Forms 27. Almost all of these three-stage “flip-flops” moved from worked to not worked to worked, with the aberrant ‘not worked’ year occurring in 2013. In fact, 2013 seems to have been a popular year for changes in working status, whether because of heightened awareness, and therefore greater scrutiny of Form 27 filings due to the Controller General’s public notice of that year, or changes in interpretation of filing requirements occasioned by a widely-attended seminar or article. But whatever the cause, it seems highly unlikely that, over the course of three years, a single patent could go from being worked in India, to not being worked, to being worked again. As a result, we attribute these flip-flop changes primarily to filing errors and inconsistencies rather than genuine attempts to correct inaccurate disclosures.

Corresponding to changes in working status, patentees often changed the textual descriptions of working or non-working contained in their Forms 27. These changes usually involved adding stock language regarding working or non-working to a Form 27 that previously contained no descriptive information. However, in some cases the patentee’s descriptive text bears little relation to the purported working status of the patent. For example, as illustrated in Table 2 below, a single patentee’s disclosures with respect to two different patents across three filings employ the same textual descriptions but for different working status.

Table 2 Comparison of Working Status Descriptions

As illustrated by Table 2, the patentee’s working description (Text A) is identical in 2011 and 2014 for both patents, though in 2014 one patent is allegedly worked and the other is not. Likewise, in 2013, one patent is worked and the other is not, yet the textual description for both is identical (Text B). Putting aside, for a moment, the fact that neither Text A not Text B is particularly responsive to the information requirements of Form 27, it is puzzling why the patentee would use the same stock language to describe both working and non-working of its patents. The only consistency that emerges from this example is across filing years, suggesting, perhaps, that the textual descriptions used in these forms was more dependent on the person or firm making the filing in a particular year than the alleged working status of the patents in question.

IV. Discussion and Analysis

Professor Basheer charges that significant numbers of Forms 27 are “grossly incomplete, incomprehensible or inaccurate,” and has sued the Indian Patent Office to compel it to improve its monitoring and enforcement of Form 27 filings. Our results confirm that there are overall weaknesses in the Indian Form 27 system, several of which reveal deeper problems with the implementation of India’s patent working requirement.

A. Process Weaknesses

Though filings in support of India’s patent working obligation have been required since 1972, and Form 27 has been on the books since 2003, meaningful filings of Form 27 did not begin until the Controller’s first public notice on this topic in 2009. In the following eight years, Form 27 filings have increased, but are still well below required levels (see Part III.A, above). Even at their peak in 2013, we located only 70.7% of required Forms 27 in the mobile device sector, a sector characterized by sophisticated firms that are advised by counsel. Filing ratios were significantly lower in every other year.

There are several possible reasons for these discrepancies. First are possible issues with the IPO’s electronic access to records. As noted in Part II, we experienced significant difficulties obtaining Forms 27 through the IPO’s web site. It was only after two RTI requests that significant numbers of Forms 27 were made accessible online. It is possible that the IPO has additional Forms 27 in its files that have not been made accessible electronically. For a system the purpose of which is to make information about non-worked patents available to the public, such lapses are inexcusable, particularly given that India’s current working requirement is nearing its 50th anniversary. Accordingly, we expect that improvements to the IPO’s electronic filing and access systems may improve the profile of Form 27 filing compliance.

B. Non-Enforcement and Non-Compliance

As noted above, we expect that some portion of the apparent non-compliance with India’s Form 27 requirement is attributable to the inaccessibility of properly filed Forms 27. However, it is also likely that some portion of the deficit in available Forms 27 is due to actual non-compliance by patentees. Though there are stiff penalties on the books for failing to comply with Form 27 filing requirements, including fines and imprisonment, we are unaware of any enforcement action by the IPO or any other Indian governmental authority regarding such non-compliance.

Given that records of all issued Indian patents are available online, and that all filed Forms 27 should also be available online, it would not seem particularly difficult for the IPO to implement an automatic monitoring and alert system warning patentees that they have not filed required Forms 27. Such a system would likely increase compliance substantially. However, we find no evidence that the IPO monitors or otherwise keeps track of Form 27 filings or seeks to contact patentees who fail to meet their filing requirements. As a result, it is not surprising that non-compliance is widespread.

C. Uncertainty Surrounding Working and Complex Products

When Forms 27 are filed, many of them lack any meaningful detail regarding the manner in which patents are worked or the reasons that they are not worked. While the descriptive requirements of Form 27 are quite clear, even the largest and most sophisticated patentees seemingly struggle with determining whether or not a patent is actually worked in India and, if so, how to quantify its working in the manner required by the Form. There are several reasons that this degree of uncertainty exists. First, India has no clear statutory, regulatory or judicial guidelines for interpreting its working requirement. As the court noted in Natco, the working determination must be made on a case by case basis, with attention to the specific details of the patent in question. This open-ended standard offers little guidance to firms regarding the degree to which importation or licensing may qualify as working a patent, or even what degree of assembly, packaging or distribution within India will so qualify.

Additionally, some patentees have taken the position in their Forms 27 that merely licensing a patent to an Indian firm qualifies as working the patent in India. Some have even gone so far as to take the position that granting a worldwide patent license qualifies as working the licensed patent in India, given that India is part of the world. These conclusions seem stretched, but they have not, to our knowledge, ever been challenged by the IPO or any private party.

What’s more, several patentees take the position that it is impossible to determine the value attributable to a single patent that covers only one element of a complex standard or product (“too big to know”). While these patentees may disclose the size of their large patent portfolios or total Indian product revenues, these figures do not provide the information required by Form 27 relative to the individual patent that is claimed to be worked.

Given the degree of uncertainty surrounding the Indian working requirement and how it is satisfied, it is not surprising that the disclosures contained in most Forms 27 are meaningless boilerplate that convey little or no useful information about the relevant patents or products. Moreover, it is questionable whether it is even possible for a willing patentee to provide the product and revenue information currently required by Form 27 for complex, multi-patent products such a mobile devices. It may be time for the IPO to revisit the information requirements of Form 27, which were seemingly developed with products covered by one or a handful of patents in mind, to more suitable address complex electronic and communications products that may be covered by hundreds or thousands of patents each.

D. Strategic Behavior

In an environment of extreme uncertainty and low enforcement, it is not surprising that patentees have developed self-serving strategies to achieve their internal goals while arguably complying with the requirements of Form 27. Evidence of strategic behavior can be seen clearly in the divide between those patentees that claim that they are working most of their patents and those that claim that they are not. We can assume that there are not significant differences in the portfolio make-up among these different patentees, so the large difference between their ratios of worked and non-worked patents must be attributable primarily to decisions made to further corporate interests.

For example, it is possible that those patentees claiming significant working of their patents do so in order to avoid requests for compulsory licenses against their patents. Such patentees may wish to exploit the Indian market themselves, or license others to do so on terms of their choosing, so may seek to avoid compulsory licensing on terms dictated by the government. Those patentees claiming significant non-working, on the other hand, may actively be seeking applications for compulsory licensing. Why? Perhaps because these patentees do not plan to sell products in India and see little prospect of entering into commercial license agreements with Indian producers. Thus, their greatest prospect of any financial return on their patents may be a compulsory license. As unlikely as it sounds, they may be using Form 27 as a legally-sanctioned “To Let” sign for otherwise unprofitable patents.

Whatever the underlying reasons are for patentee strategic decisions in the filing of Forms 27, IPO owes the public greater clarity regarding the formal requirements for working patents in India. It is only when disclosures are made in a consistent and understandable format that the public will acquire the knowledge about patent working that the Act intends for them to receive.

E. Opportunities for Further Study

This is the first comprehensive and systematic study of reporting compliance with India’s patent working requirements. It covers only one industry sector: mobile devices. Expanding this study to additional industry sectors, particularly pharmaceuticals and biomedical products, would likely yield additional insights.

It would also be informative to revisit the instant set of patents in a few years time to determine whether increased IPO access to electronic records may alter the somewhat poor compliance landscape revealed by this study. That is, if a significant number of Forms 27 that have been filed are simply unavailable through the IPO’s web site, then hopefully continued information technology improvements at the IPO will improve availability in years to come.

Conclusion

India’s annual Form 27 filing requirement is intended to provide the public with information regarding the working of patents in India so as to enable informed requests to be made for compulsory licenses of non-worked patents. While such a goal is laudable, it is not clear that this system is currently achieving the desired results.

In the first systematic study of all Forms 27 filed with respect to a key industry sector ñ mobile devices ñ we found significant under-reporting of patent working, likely due to some combination of systemic deficiencies and non-compliance by patentees. Thus, from 2009 to 2016, we could identify and access only 20.1% of Forms 27 that should have been filed in this sector, corresponding to 72.5% of all mobile device patents for which Forms 27 should have been filed. Forms 27 were missing for almost all patentees, suggesting that defects in the Indian Patent Office’s online access system may play a role in the unavailability of some forms.

But even among Forms 27 that were accessible, almost none contained useful information regarding the working of the subject patents or fully complying with the informational requirements of the Form and the Indian Patent Rules. Patentees adopted drastically different positions regarding the definition of patent working, some arguing that importation of products into India or licensing of Indian suppliers constituted working, while others even went so far as to argue that the granting of a worldwide license to a non-Indian firm constituted working in India. Several significant patentees claimed that they or their patent portfolios were simply too large to enable the provision of information relating to individual patents, and instead provided gross revenue and product sale figures, together with historical anecdotes about their long histories in India. And many patentees simply omitted required descriptive information from their Forms without explanation.

The Indian government has made little or no effort to monitor or police compliance with Form 27 filings, likely encouraging non-compliance. Moreover, some of the complaints raised by patentees and industry observers regarding the structure of the Form 27 requirement itself have merit. Namely, patents covering complex, multi-component products that embody dozens of technical standards and thousands of patents are not necessarily amenable to the individual-level data requested by Form 27. We hope that this study will contribute to the ongoing conversation in India regarding the most appropriate means for collecting and disseminating information regarding the working of patents.

APPENDIX

TABLE A1

Professor, University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law and Senior Fellow, Centre for International Governance Innovation. JD (Harvard Law School), BSEE, BA (Rice University). The authors are grateful for constructive discussion and feedback at the 2016 Works in Progress in Intellectual Property conference at University of Washington, the 2017 International Intellectual Property Roundtable at NYU Law School, the 2017 Intellectual Property Scholars Conference (IPSC) at Cardozo Law School, the Second International Conference on Standardization, Patents and Competition Issues at Jindal Global Law School, and a faculty workshop at the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law. We also thank Anubha Sinha, Shamnad Basheer, Nehaa Chaudhari, Kirti Gupta, Kshitij Kumar Singh, Marketa Trimble and Sai Vinod for their helpful input regarding this article, and Anna Liz Thomas and Nayana Dasgupta for valuable research assistance. The research for this article was conducted as part of the Pervasive Technologies Project at the Centre for Internet and Society, India, and has been supported, in part, by the International Development Research Centre (Canada), the Albert and Elaine Borchard Fund for Faculty Excellence at the University of Utah and Google, Inc. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors.

Program Officer, Centre for Internet and Society, India. Bachelor of Instrumentation Engineering (University of Mumbai).

Law Clerk, Supreme Court of Utah. JD (University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law), BS, BA (Butler University).

Natco Pharma Ltd. v. Bayer Corp., (2011) I.P.O. Order No. 1, at 6 (India).

See id.

The Natco case is one in a long line of cases in the ongoing “access to medicines” dispute, in which developing countries seek compulsory licenses for local use of lifesaving drugs that are patented by western pharmaceutical firms. See, e.g., Srividhya Ragavan, Patent and Trade Disparities in Developing Countries (2012); Charles R. McManis and Jorge L. Contreras, Compulsory Licensing of Intellectual Property: A Viable Policy Lever for Promoting Access to Critical Technologies?, in TRIPS and Developing Countries ñ Towards a New IP World Order? (Gustavo Ghidini, Rudolph J.R. Peritz & Marco Ricolfi, eds. 2014); Jerome H. Reichman, Comment: Compulsory Licensing of Patented Pharmaceutical Inventions: Evaluating the Options, 37 J. L. Med. & Ethics 247, 250 (2009).

Natco Pharma Ltd. v. Bayer Corp., supra note at 6.

See Patents Act, No. 39 of 1970, India Code (1970), ch. XVI, ß 84(1).

See Rochelle Dreyfuss & Susy Frankel, From Incentive to Commodity to Asset: How International Law Is Reconceptualizing Intellectual Property, 36 Mich. J. Int’l L. 557, 576 (2015); See also Feroz Ali, Picket Patents: Non-Working as an IP Abuse, at *5, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2732521 (last visited Feb. 6, 2017); see also Bryan Mercurio & Mitali Tyagi, Treaty Interpretation in WTO Dispute Settlement: The Outstanding Question of the Legality of Local Working Requirements, 19 Minn. J. Int’l L. 275, 281 (2010).

Marketa Trimble, Patent Working Requirements: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, 6 U.C. Iʀᴠɪɴᴇ L. Rᴇᴠ. 483, 500-501 (2016).

Id. at 495.

Jorge L. Contreras & Rohini LakshanÈ, Patents and Mobile Devices in India: An Empirical Survey, 50 Vand. Transnat’l L.J. 1 (2017). The data set used in the foregoing study can be found at https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dataset-patent-landscape-of-mobile-device-technologies-in-india.

Trimble, supra note , at 488. In England, royal patents were granted to foreigners who would teach their art to the local population. Id. at 488, 497. Venice provided monopoly rights and tax holidays for foreign inventors to immigrate and improve local industrialization. Ragavan, supra note , at 3.

See Ragavan, supra note , at 3; see also G.B. Reddy & Harunrashid A. Kadri, Local Working of Patents ñ Law and Implementation in India, 18 J. Intell. Prop. Rights 15, 15 (2013).

See Ragavan, supra note , at 3; see also Trimble, supra note , at 488.

See Ragavan, supra note , at 3; see also Reddy & Kadri, supra note , at 16.

See Reddy & Kadri, supra note , at 17; see also Ali, supra note , at *9.

See generally Paul Champ & Amir Attaran, Patent Rights and Local Working Under the WTO TRIPS Agreement: An Analysis of the U.S.-Brazil Patent Dispute, 27 Yale J. Int’l L. 365, 371 (2002).

Trimble, supra note , at 498 (“In the United Kingdom in the 18th century ‘the requirement of compulsory working dropped into desuetude and its place was taken for all practical purposes, in particular in the practice of the law courts, by [the full disclosure] requirement’”) (alterations in original) (internal citations omitted).

Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, World Intellectual Property Organization, art. 5(A)(1), March 20, 1883.

See Reddy & Kadri, supra note , at 17; see also Champ & Attaran, supra note , at 371; Trimble, supra note , at 493ñ94.

Hague Revision to Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, World Intellectual Property Organization, art. (5)(A)(2), November 6, 1925.

See Champ & Attaran, supra note , at 372; see also Trimble, supranote , at *490-94 (tracing history of remedies for failure to meet working requirements, including forfeiture).

London Revision to Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, World Intellectual Property Organization, art. 5(A)(4), June 2, 1934; See Trimble, supra note , at 494.

Stockholm Revision to Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, World Intellectual Property Organization, art. 5(A)(2), July 14, 1967.

See Trimble, supra note , at 494-95; see also Janice M. Mueller, The Tiger Awakens: The Tumultuous Transformation of India’s Patent System and the Rise of Indian Pharmaceutical Innovation, 68 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 491, 517-18 (2007)..

See Trimble, supra note , at 494.

See Ragavan, supra note , at 65-66. See generally TRIPS: Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1c, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299, 33 I.L.M. 1197 (1994), reprinted in World Trade Organization, The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations 365 (1995) [hereinafter “TRIPS Agreement”].

Additionally, those countries that were not members of the Paris Union but are members of the WTO are therefore obligated to comply with the Paris Convention and its revisions under Article 2.2 of the TRIPS Agreement.

TRIPS Agreement, supra note , art. 27.1.

TRIPS Agreement, supra note , art. 30-31; see also Ragavan, supranote ; McManis and Contreras, supra note .

See generally Trimble, supra note , at 496; Shamnad Basheer, Making Patents Work: Of IP Duties and Deficient Disclosures, 7 Queen Mary J. Intell. Prop. 3, 16-17 (2017).

Request for Consultations by the United States, Brazil ñ Measures Affecting Patent Protection, WTO Doc. WT/DS199/1 (June 8, 2000); see also Reddy & Kadri, supra note , at 17; Trimble, supra note , at 496-497.

Champ & Attaran, supra note , at 380.

Article 28(1) of the TRIPS Agreement defines the rights that may be conferred on patent owners.

Champ & Attaran, supra note , at 381-82.

Id. at 381. The two patented drugs that the Brazilian Ministry of Health threatened to grant compulsory licenses on were efavirenz and nelfinavir. These drugs are antiretroviral drugs used to treat AIDS. Geoff Dyer, Brazil Defiant Over Cheap AIDS Drugs, Fin. Times, Feb. 9, 2001, at 10.

Barbara Crossette, U.S. Drops Case Over AIDS Drugs in Brazil, N.Y. Times (June 26, 2001), http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/26/world/us-drops-case-over-aids-drugs-in-brazil.html.

Kalyan C. Kankanala, Arun K. Narasani & Vinita Radhakrishnan, Indian Patent Law & Practice 1 (2010).

See Mueller, supra note , at 509-511; see also Ragavan, supra note , at 31.

Shri Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, Report on the Revision of the Patents Law (September 1959) [hereinafter “Ayyangar Report”]; Ragavan,supra note , at 31-33.

P. Narayanan, Patent Law 5 (4th ed. 2006).

Ayyangar Report, supra note .

Ragavan, supra note , at 35.

Id. at 39-40.

See generally The Patents Act, No. 39 of 1970, India Code (1970).

See Ragavan, supra note , at 42-45 (summarizing changes effected by the 1970 law).

The Patents Act, 1970 ß 83 (emphasis added).

The Indian Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks, who will be referred to herein as the Controller for simplicity.

The Patents Act, 1970, ß 84(1) (emphasis added). The three-year time period reflected in the Act is derived from Section 5(A)(4) of the Paris Convention (current numbering). See supra note .

The Patents Act, 1970 ß 84(1).

Id. ß 90(c).

Id.

Id. ß 89(3). While the language of Section 89 is couched in terms of the “reasonable requirements of the public,” it is interesting to note that the caption of the section reads “Revocation of patents by the Controller for non-working,” thus focusing more explicitly on the working requirement.

The Patents Act, 1970 ß 89(1). The two-year time period reflected in the Act is derived from Section 5(A)(3) of the Paris Convention (current numbering). See supra note and accompanying text.

See India and the WTO, Wᴏʀʟᴅ Tʀᴀᴅᴇ Oʀɢ.,http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/india_e.htm. See generally TRIPS Agreement.

India amended its 1970 Act in three amendments, corresponding to the transition periods permitted by the TRIPS Agreement. India played a significant role in establishing the TRIPS multi-year transition periods. See Mueller, supra note , at 518. For a discussion of India’s political and economic considerations underlying its support of compulsory licensing under TRIPS, see Omar Serrano & Mira Burri, Making Use of TRIPS Flexibilities: Implementation and Diffusion of Compulsory Licensing Regimes in Brazil and India (World Trade Inst. Working Paper No. 1 2016).

The Patents (Amendment) Act, No. 38 of 2002, India Code (2002).

Id. ß 85.

Id. ß 83(c).

Id. ß 83(d)-(f).

Id. ß 89.

Id. ß 84(1) (emphasis added).

Id.

Id. ß 84(6).

See Thomas Cottier, Shaheeza Lalani & Michelangelo Temmerman, Use It or Lose It: Assessing the Compatibility of the Paris Convention and TRIPS Agreement with Respect to Local Working Requirements, 17 J. Int’l Econ. L. 437, 441 (2014).

See The Patents Act, No. 39 of 1970, India Code (1970), ß 90(2) (“No license granted by the Controller shall authorise the licensee to import the patented article or an article or substance made by a patented process from abroad where such importation would, but for such authorisation, constitute an infringement of the rights of the patentee.”).

See Basheer, supra note , at 9.

Natco Pharma Ltd. v. Bayer Corp., (2011) I.P.O. Order No. 1, 5 (India).

Id. at 22.

Id. at 25 (noting that an average Indian government employee would have to work for 3.5 years to afford a single month’s dosage).

Id. at 6.

Id. at 5.

Id.

Id. at 6.

Id.

Id. at 37.

Id.

Id. at 38.

Id. at 40-41.

Id. at 43.

Id. at 45 (“I am therefore convinced that ‘worked in the territory of India’ means ‘manufactured to a reasonable extent in India.’”).

Id. at 60.

Natco Pharma Ltd. v. Bayer Corp., (2013) I.P.A.B. Order No. 45 (India).

Id.

Id. at 43.

Bayer Corp. v. Union of India, Bombay High Ct. at 29 (Jul. 15, 2014).

Id.

Id. at 24.

Id. Bayer subsequently appealed to the Indian Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case. See Samanwaya Rautray, Nexavar License Case: SC Dismisses Bayer’s Appeal Against HC Decision, Economic Times, Dec. 13, 2014, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/healthcare/biotech/pharmaceuticals/nexavar-licence-case-sc-dismisses-bayers-appeal-against-hc-decision/articleshow/45500051.cms

Harsha Rohatgi, Indian Patent Office Rejects Compulsory Licensing Application: BDR Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bristol Myers Squibb, Khurana & Khurana (last visited Oct. 20, 2017), http://www.khuranaandkhurana.com/2013/11/13/indian-patent-office-rejects-compulsory-licensing-application-bdr-pharmaceuticals-pvt-ltd-vs-bristol-myers-squibb/.

Patralekha Chatterjee, 2013: India Battles for Right to Use Compulsory Licenses to Make Medicines Affordable, Intellectual Property Watch(last visited Oct. 20, 2017), https://www.ip-watch.org/2013/01/22/2013-india-battles-for-right-to-use-compulsory-licences-to-make-medicines-affordable/.

See Pankhuri Agarwal, DIPP Drags the Dasatinib Compulsory License Drama: A Situation of ‘Extreme Urgency’?, SpicyIP blog (Sep. 24, 2016), https://spicyip.com/2016/09/dipp-drags-the-dasatinib-compulsory-license-drama-a-situation-of-extreme-urgency.html. See, e.g., IPO Order No. C.L.A. No.1 of 2015, In the matter of Lee Pharma Ltd v. AstraZeneca AB, dated January 19, 2016 (rejecting application due to lack of evidence presented under all three prongs of Section 84 analysis).

For example, Article 68 of Brazil’s 1996 Industrial Property Law subjects a patentee to compulsory licensing if the patentee does not exploit “the object of the patent within the Brazilian territory for failure to manufacture the product or failure to use a patented process.” 68 C.P.I., Law No. 9,279 (Brazil, May 14, 1996). For additional examples, See Cottier et al., supra note , at 461-71.

While form submissions to show the working of a patent are unique to India’s patent law, a submission requirement to maintain intellectual property rights is similarly used in the United States for trademarks. In the United States, registered trademark owners must submit a declaration of use to avoid cancellation of the registration. See 15 U.S.C. ß 1058.

The Patents Act, No. 39 of 1970, India Code (1970), ß 146(2).

Id.

The Patent Rules, Rule 131, India (2003).

The Patent Rules, Rule 131, India (2003). There is an apparent discrepancy between section 146(2) of the India Patents Act, 1970 and Rule 131 of the Patent Rules, 2003. While section 146 suggests that patentees should file Forms 27 every six months, Rule 131 of the Patent Rules, 2003 requires the statements to be furnished in respect of every calendar year.

The Patents Act, No. 39 of 1970, India Code (1970), ß 146(2).

The public requirement refers to “the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented invention.” The Patents (Amendment) Act, No. 38 of 2002, India Code (2002), ß 84(1)(a). In other words, if the patentee must explain how he has or has not met his duties under section 83 and 84 of the Patents Amendment Act of 2002.

Patents Rules, Form 27, 2003.

The Patents (Amendment) Act, No. 38 of 2002, India Code (2002), ß 122 provides:

“1) If any person refuses or fails to furnish-Ö b) to the controller any information or statement which he is required to furnish by or under section 146,

he shall be punishable with [a] fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees.

2) If any person, being required to furnish any such information as is referred to in sub-section (1), furnishes information or statement which is false, and which he either knows or has reason to believe to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.”

Annual Report 2007-08, Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks including GIR and PIS/NIIPM (IPTI), at 12; see also Reddy & Kadri, supra note , at 21.

Annual Report 2008-09, Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, Trade Marks and Geographical Indications, at 21; Annual Report 2007-08, Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and TradeMarks including GIR and PIS/NIIPM (IPTI), at 12; see also Reddy & Kadri, supra note , at 21-22.

Controller Gen. of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, Public Notice No. CG/PG/2009/179, Dec. 24, 2009; Controller Gen. of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, Public Notice No. CG/Public Notice/2013/77, Feb. 12, 2013; Controller Gen. of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, Public Notice No. CG/Public Notice/2015/95, 2015.

The Patents Act, No. 39 of 1970, India Code (1970), ß 122. (A patentee may be imprisoned for submitting false information).

Reddy & Kadri, supra note , at 22; see also Shamnad Basheer v. Union of India, Writ Petition, at F (Del. 2015) [hereinafter Basheer Writ Petition (2015)] (“[T]he Respondents authorities have never initiated action against any of the errant patentees.”).

Prashant Reddy, Patent Office Publishes All ‘Statements of Working’ ñ Finally!, Spicy IP, (June 25, 2013) https://spicyip.com/2013/06/patent-office-publishes-all-statements.html.

See, e.g., Basheer Writ Petition (2015), supra note (raising numerous deficiencies with Form 27); Shamnad Basheer & N. Sai Vinod RTI Applications and ‘Working’ of Foreign Drugs in India, Spicy IP, at 5 (Apr., 2011) (“However, Form 27 in its present format leaves much to be desired and we will be drafting a more optimal Form 27 and forwarding this to the government for consideration, so that the form can be a lot more clearer and can call for a greater range of information.”).

Letter from Philip S. Johnson, President, Intellectual Prop. Owners Assn., to Hon. Michael Froman, U.S. Trade Representative (Feb. 7, 2014).

Id.

Prathiba Singh & Ashutosh Kumar, When in Rome, do as the Romans do, IP Pro Life Sciences at 16, (Mar. 10, 2013)http://ipprolifesciences.com/ipprolifesciences/IPPro%20Life%20Sciences_issue_04.pdf.

Among other things, Prof. Basheer is the founder of the SpicyIP blog, a leading source of intellectual property news and commentary in India. SeePart III.A, infra, for a discussion of the results of his studies of Form 27 compliance.

Basheer & Vinod, supra note , at 6-8.

Basheer Writ Petition (2015), supra note .

Id. at 1, 8.

Shamnad Basheer v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 5590 (Del. 2015), Application Seeking Permission to Intervene in the Above Public Interest Litigation (2016). Some of the issues raised by Mr. Thappeta are discussed in Part IV below.

Bayer Corp. v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 1323 of 2013, Judgment at 8ñ10 (Jul. 15, 2014).

Basheer, supra note , at 17.

Indian Patent Office reporting year (Apr. 1 – Mar. 31).

See supra note .

Basheer & Vinod, supra note .

This study pre-dates the electronic availability of Forms 27.

Basheer & Vinod, supra note , at 7-8.

Basheer Writ Petition (2015), supra note , at Annexure P-11, tbl. I. It is not clear how the studied patents were selected. They do not represent the totality of patents in the designated industry sectors. Likewise, it is not clear how “publicly-funded research” is defined nor the amount of such funding behind the selected patents.

It appears that this study covered three “reporting years” at the IPO: 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. Reporting years run from April 1 to March 31.

This figure is calculated as 1 – 263/421. Prof. Basheer has reported this ratio as approximately 35%. Basheer, supra note , at 18.

Basheer Writ Petition (2015), supra note , at Annexure P-11, tbl. I.

Id. at 10.

Id. at 10-16; Basheer, supra note , at 19.

Basheer, supra note , at 12-13.

See Contreras & LakshanÈ, supra note , at 27-28 (describing electronic search and case harvesting methodology).

Searches were conducted and results were compiled by a contracted Indian service provider selected through a competitive bid process.

While InPASS and IPAIRS retrieve Form 27 submissions from the same URL, we observed that sometimes a submission that was displayed on data base was not displayed on the other. Thus, IPAIRS was used when Form 27 was not found for a queried patent on InPASS. InPASS has two features: Application Status and E-Register. At times, some forms were not available at E-Register that could be found through the Application Status table, and vice versa. Thus, both features were used. A detailed, step-by-step description of the search methodology used can be found at http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/methodology-statements-of-working-form-27-of-indian-mobile-device-patents.

Ajoy Kumar, “Request for Information under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005; regarding Form 27 Submissions for Patents,” The Centre for Internet and Society, (June 10, 2015), https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-app-2015.pdf/at_download/file.

Boudhik Bhawan, “Supply of information sought under RTI ñ reg,” The Centre for Internet and Society, (June 17, 2015), https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-reply-2015.pdf/at_download/file.

Ajoy Kumar, “Request for Information under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005; regarding Form 27 Submissions for Patents,” The Centre for Internet and Society, (Mar. 11, 2016), https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-app-2016.pdf/at_download/file.

Id.

Ujjwala Haldankar, “Supply of information sought under RTI, 2005 ñ reg,” The Centre for Internet and Society, (Apr. 4, 2016), https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-reply-2016.pdf/at_download/file.

Rohini LakshanÈ, Dataset for “Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products: An Empirical Assessment of India’s Form 27 Practice and Compliance,” The Centre for Internet and Society (Aug. 17, 2017), https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dataset-for-patent-working-requirements-and-complex-products-an-empirical-assessment-of-indias-form-27-practice-and-compliance.

Similar deficiencies with the IPO’s online filing facility have been noted by Basheer. See Basheer Writ Petition (2015), supra note , at 17.

Prior to the 2002 Amendments to the Patents Act, 1970 (effective May 20, 2003), the term of product patents in India was 14 years from the date of issuance. Patents Act (2002 Amendments), Sec. 53. Accordingly, any patent issued in 1995 or earlier would be expired by 2009. Based on the data provided by the Controller and Basheer, it appears that few, if any, Forms 27 were filed prior to 2009. Thus, it is unlikely that any patent that expired prior to 2009 would have a corresponding Form 27. As a result, for purposes of counting Forms 27 that were, and should have been filed, we disregarded 107 patents in our dataset that were issued in 1995 or earlier (the vast majority of which were owned by Siemens).

A total of 4,935 Forms 27 were identified by our search. In 2013, Motorola filed 19 Forms 27 that were backdated to 2004 and 2005. These Forms corresponded to patents issued between 2008 and 2010, and apparently reflected the patentee’s incorrect belief that Form 27 must be filed as of the date of the filing of a patent application rather than the issuance of the patent. Because the patentee also filed Forms 27 dated as of 2013 for these patents, we have disregarded these spurious filings.

Based on the data provided by the Controller and Basheer, it appears that few, if any, Forms 27 were filed prior to 2009. Thus, we assumed that Forms 27, if filed, would only have begun to be filed in 2009. As discussed in note , supra, the first patents that could be expected to have a filed Form 27 were issued in 1996 (i.e., one Form filed in 2009, the year of the patent’s expiration). Thus, beginning with patents issued in 1996, we calculated the total number of Forms 27 that could have been filed with respect to such patents beginning in 2009 and ending in 2016 (noting that we ended our study in August 2016). Thus, for patents issued in 1996 and expiring in 2009, one Form 27 could have been filed. For patents issued in 2002 to 2008, and expiring well after 2016, a total of eight Forms 27 could have been filed, in each case beginning in 2009 and ending in 2016. Patents issued in 2015 could have at most one Form 27 filed. Though Form 27 is not required to be filed until the year after a patent has been granted, some patentees have made filings in the year of grant. We counted these filings, but did not count year-of-grant filings in determining the maximum number of filings that could be made for a particular patent.

See supra text accompanying note .

It is not surprising that no forms were available for patents issued prior to 2007, the first year that the Indian Controller of Patents drew attention to the Form 27 requirement. See supra Part I.D.

For patents that had different working designations in Forms 27 filed in different years, we counted a patent to be declared as worked if at least one Form 27 so designated the patent.

See supra text accompanying note .

See Basheer Writ Petition, supra note , at 10.

Motorola, Form 27 for 243220, IɴPASS (Mar. 31, 2014), http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/frm27/2013/243220_2013/243220_2013.pdf.

Ericsson, Form 27 for 241488, IɴPASS (Feb. 3, 2012), http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/frm27/2011/241488_2011/241488_2011.pdf(“The patentee is in the look out for appropriate working opportunities in a large scale although there may have been some use of the patented technology in conjunction with other patented technologies.”).

Google, Form 27 for 243210, IɴPASS (Mar. 27, 2015), http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/frm27/2014/243210_2014/243210_2014.pdf. See infra Part III.D for a discussion of patents as to which the patentee has changed the working status over the years.

See, e.g., Ericsson, Form 27 for 209941, IɴPASS (Mar. 30, 2015), http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/frm27/2014/209941_2014/209941_2014.pdf.

See, e.g., Ericsson, Form 27 for 259809, IɴPASS (Mar. 19, 2015), http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/frm27/2014/259809_2014/259809_2014.pdf.

Ericsson, Form 27 for 227819, IɴPASS (Mar. 13, 2015), http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/frm27/2014/227819_2014/227819_2014.pdf(“The patentee is in the look out for appropriate working opportunities in a large scale”); Motorola, Form 27 for 236128, IɴPASS (Mar. 8, 2013), http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/frm27/2012/236128_2012/236128_2012.pdf(“The Patentee is actively looking for licensees and customers to commercialise the invention in the Indian environment.”).

Alcatel-Lucent, Form 27 for 258507, IɴPASS (Mar. 18, 2015), http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/frm27/2014/258507_2014/258507_2014.pdf.

Panasonic, Form 27 for 239668, IɴPASS (Mar. 21, 2014), http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/frm27/2013/239668_2013/239668_2013.pdf; Panasonic, Form 27 for 208405, IɴPASS (Mar. 21, 2014), http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/frm27/2013/208405_2013/208405_2013.pdf.

Ericsson, Form 27 for 233994, IɴPASS (Mar. 6, 2013), http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/frm27/2012/233994_2012/233994_2012.pdf.

Id.

See Oracle, Form 27 for 230190, IɴPASS (Mar. 24, 2014), http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/frm27/2013/230190_2013/230190_2013.pdf(“The methods/structures of the patent are generally related to "Asynchronous servers". This product has been sold to several businesses in India in the past few years and is believed to be used by them. Additional information will be enquired and provided to the Patent Office upon request.”).

Nokia Siemens, Form 27 for 254894, IɴPASS (Mar. 28, 2014), http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/frm27/2013/254894_2013/254894_2013.pdf.

Ericsson, Form 27 for 249058, IɴPASS (Mar. 03, 2014), http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/frm27/2013/249058_2013/249058_2013.pdf; In other Forms 27, however, Ericsson

provides significant detail regarding the standards/specifications covered by its patents.

See, e.g., Ericsson, Form 27 for 213723, IɴPASS (Mar. 16, 2016), http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/frm27/2015/213723_2015/213723_2015.pdf(citing ETSI TS 126 092 V4.0.0 (2001-03), ETSI TS 126 073 V4.1.0 (2001-12) and ETSI TS 126 093 V4.0.0 (2000-12), all of which are pertinent to the UMTS 3G standard).

See, e.g., Qualcomm, Form 27 for 251876, IɴPASS (Mar. 28, 2015), http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/frm27/2014/251876_2014/251876_2014.pdf(disclosing Indian licensee Innominds Software Pvt. Ltd.).

See Ericsson, Form 27 for 213723, IɴPASS (Mar. 16, 2016), http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/frm27/2015/213723_2015/213723_2015.pdf(referencing royalty payments from Micromax and Gionee).

Qualcomm, Form 27 for 251876, IɴPASS (Mar. 28, 2015), http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/frm27/2014/251876_2014/251876_2014.pdf.

Id.

Nokia, Form 27 for 220072, IɴPASS (Mar. 20, 2014), http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/frm27/2013/220072_2013/220072_2013.pdf.

Ericsson, Form 27 for 251757, IɴPASS (Mar 11, 2014), http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/frm27/2013/251757_2013/251757_2013.pdf.

Id.

See, e.g., Ericsson, Form 27 for 248764, IɴPASS (Mar. 23, 2012)

http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/patentsearch/GrantedSearch/viewdoc.aspx?id=gPYX0WsErIRQR3is4uM1fw%3d%3d&loc=wDBSZCsAt7zoiVrqcFJsRw%3d%3d.

See, e.g., Huawei, Form 27 for 251769, IɴPASS (Mar. 4, 2014), http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/frm27/2013/251769_2013/251769_2013.pdf(“Information not readily available; efforts will be made to collect and submit further Information, if asked for.”).

See, e.g., Hitachi, Form 27 for 226462, IɴPASS (Mar. 28, 2013), http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/frm27/2013/226462_2013/226462_2013.pdf(“Confidential Information will be provided if asked for.”).

Research in Motion, Form 27 for 261068, IɴPASS (Feb. 10, 2015), http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/frm27/2014/261068_2014/261068_2014.pdf.

Ericsson, Form 27 for 254652, IɴPASS (Mar. 21, 2016), http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/frm27/2015/254652_2015/254652_2015.pdf.

See, e.g., Alcatel-Lucent, Form 27 for 202208, IɴPASS (Mar. 27, 2014), http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/frm27/2013/202208_2013/202208_2013.pdf.

See, e.g., Ericsson, Form 27 for 235605, IɴPASS (Feb. 23, 2011), http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/patentsearch/GrantedSearch/viewdoc.aspx?id=ghLLyAj0oCzH9pUf4tY2Kw%3d%3d&loc=wDBSZCsAt7zoiVrqcFJsRw%3d%3d; Ericsson, Form 27 for 235605, IɴPASS (Feb. 6, 2012), http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/patentsearch/GrantedSearch/viewdoc.aspx?id=ghLLyAj0oCzH9pUf4tY2Kw%3d%3d&loc=wDBSZCsAt7zoiVrqcFJsRw%3d%3d; Huawei, Form 27 for

249244, IɴPASS (Mar. 11, 2013), http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/patentsearch/GrantedSearch/viewdoc.aspx?id=9BzV82RULJkFoIPZZZeH9A%3d%3d&loc=+mN2fYxnTC4l0fUd8W4CAA%3d%3d.

Basheer Writ Petition (2015), supra note , at 10.

A patentee may be imprisoned for submitting false information. The Patents Act, No. 39 of 1970, India Code, ß 122 (1970).

See Reddy & Kadri, supra note , at 22; Basheer Writ Petition (2015), supra note , at 10 (“authorities have never initiated action against any of the errant patentees.”).

See supra text accompanying notes -84.

See supra Part III.C.3.c.

See supra Part III.C.3.d.

See supra Part III.C.3.e.

For example, as of 2015, more than 61,000 patent disclosures had been made against ETSI’s 4G LTE standard, and more than 43,000 against ETSI’s 3G UMTS standard, both of which are only one of many standards embodied in a typical mobile device. Justus Baron & Tim Pohlmann, Mapping Standards to Patents Using Databases of Declared Standard-Essential Patents and Systems of Technological Classification at 20, Table 5 (Regulation & Econ. Growth, Working Paper, 2015), http://www.law.northwestern.edu/research-faculty/searlecenter/innovationeconomics/documents/Baron_Pohlmann_Mapping_Standards.pdf.

See supra Part III.B.

We thank Chris Cotropia for this insight.

421 Forms 27 were found for Motorola. This total has been reduced by the 19 Forms filed in 2013 and incorrectly backdated to 2004 and 2005.

101 Siemens patents expired prior to 1996.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/patent-working-requirements-and-complex-products

Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products

Admin — 2017-10-03T13:33:37Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/files/patent-working-requirements-and-complex-products