IoT SEP Licensing Portal European Commission Workshop Brussels, 25 January 2017 1
Market Context IoT will bring an avalanche of new devices, connections and interfaces Connected devices are forecast to exceed 20 billion in 2020 Europe requires open standards to meet the challenges of IoT To ensure access and opportunities for all technology developers, bringing the widest interoperability and avoiding lock-in for consumers To give SMEs the ability to collaborate and to scale their efforts to compete globally To prevent hegemonic dominance of IoT by proprietary or semi-closed ecosystems IoT will require unprecedented private investment in technology innovation and open standards Private investment in open standards requires a balanced regulatory environment which truly balances the needs of both contributors and implementers and provides value to consumers Timely and efficient FRAND licensing should be a major goal of the regulatory environment The European Commission has identified challenges to SEP licensing in the IoT context Transparency Valuation Enforcement uncertainty In this context, we propose an IoT SEP Licensing Portal 2
Key Elements of the IoT SEP Licensing Portal IoT Best Practice Charter 4 key principles to be adopted by IoT licensing entities and implementers Directly addresses concerns expressed by Commission regarding valuation and injunctions Overarches SSO IP Policies Gateway to IoT SEP Licensing A transparent and accessible licensing model that is easier for implementers to navigate Connects licensors and implementers for efficient bilateral licensing Provides multiple levels of enhanced transparency Makes available to implementers a bilateral licensing pathway, on a product-by-product basis Compatible with patent pools, licensing platforms (Avanci) and other licensing vehicles Provides an option for dispute resolution an endto-end solution 3
IoT Best Practice Charter 4
IoT Best Practice Charter 1. SEP holder offers license under their relevant SEP portfolios for a specific product* 2. Royalties based on the value that connectivity brings to those products 3. Rational limits on injunctions 4. Timely, good faith negotiations NOT based on the entire end product value of a car or washing machine *products = devices, use cases and services 5
IoT Licensing Gateway 6
Risk of injunction IoT Licensing Gateway Progressive access to information Timely and efficient dispute resolution Public Tier Member Tier (members accept Charter) Willing Licensee Tier (NDA required, implementer must be qualified) Voluntary Licensing Pathway Tier (opt-in required by both SEP holder & implementer) Licensing contacts Useful licensing information Links to SSO standards & DBs Product definitions Map standards to products SEP lists with relevant std refs Exemplary claim charts Standard FRAND T&Cs Negotiation time-frame Binding dispute resolution Transparency and presumption of willingness 7
Illustration of combined Charter and Gateway 8
IoT SEP Licensing Portal - illustrative scenario Implementer 1 IoT SEP Licensing Best Practice Charter addresses: SEP holder B Implementer 2 Valuation & Enforcement SEP holder A Gateway Provides transparency and licensing pathway Implementer 3 SSO Licensing Entity Patent Pool IoT Licensing Platform 9
Alignment with EC Aspirations for greater certainty* 1. Who is the relevant community of standard essential patent holders? 2. What are the relevant technology/product categories where patent licences are needed? 3. Methodology applied to calculate the value of the licensing terms 4. Regime regarding the settlement of disputes 5. A fast, predictable, efficient and globally acceptable licensing approach, which ensures a fair return on investment for standard essential patent (SEPs) holders and fair access to SEPs for all players and especially SMEs - of the value chain would be beneficial *as articulated in the EC Communication on ICT Standardisation Priorities for the Digital Single Market, 19.4.2016 10
Further input welcome Thank you for listening 11