Slides of the panel on intellectual property role in ICT products and standardization process

1. Patents in ICT: academic view
U.Spagnolini
CommTech Talks @ PoliMi – June 5, 2013

2. Protezione dell’innovazione nel campo dell’ICT – CommTech Talks 2013
IP from academia
Goal
of
the
academia:
• Have
good
ideas
and
make
high
quality
research
• Publish
the
methods/results
to
be
peer
reviewed
by
peers
• Exchange
ideas
and
methods
with
other
peers
to
improve/refine
the
research
• Patents
are
not
the
main
focus
of
researchers
as
«it
slow-­‐down
the
cycle»
(=delay
publicaGons
&
exchange
ideas)
• Having
the
research
as
part
of
any
standard
is
just
a
dream
that
can
be
made
reality
only
if
there
is
one
industry
moGvated
to
do
so
Goal
of
the
industry:
• Spend
in
R&D
with
minimum
risk
to
maximize
the
raGo
income
to
R&D
expenditure
• Have
the
most
innovaGve
and
unique
product
that
creates
value
(we
do
not
consider
the
case
1patent=1product=1company)
3
Research
Publications
Exchange w/
peers
newideas
€

3. Protezione dell’innovazione nel campo dell’ICT – CommTech Talks 2013
Innovation in industry vs academia
A
simplified
model
of
the
innovaGon
loops
4
Research
Publications
Exchange w/
peers
Research
Patents
Standard
Products
Royalties €
€
newideas
€
Industry Academia
€

4. Protezione dell’innovazione nel campo dell’ICT – CommTech Talks 2013
Patent as “technical contract”
Research
outcome
to
patent
is
the
criGcal
part
Assuming
that
a
researcher
is
willing
to
patent
the
idea
(not
always
true):
• Researcher
is
focused
to
highlight
the
innovaGve
methods
(e.g.,
effecGve
algorithm,
new
equaGons,
etc…)
as
these
are
valued
by
peers
• Patent
is
a
legal
documents
where
it
is
used
“words”
in
Claim
structure
to
protect
the
innovaGon
(it’s
like
a
contract,
wording
is
the
only
part
used
by
Court
to
defend
your
rights)
• Patent
needs
not
to
be
valued
by
peers!
• Patent
aYorney
does
not
just
“translate
the
scienGfic
paper
into
legal
words”
but
forecasts
all
legal
issues
that
might
raise
to
legally
defend
the
idea
in
Court
in
future
(Patent
AYorney
writes
a
technical
contract)
Example:
A
and
B
communicate
in
noisy
environment
but
they
need
to
set
a
common
language
• Researcher
view:
find
the
“best
algorithm”
to
let
A
and
B
communicate
• Patent
A0orney
view:
in
order
to
let
A
and
B
communicate,
they
need
to
agree
before.
Claim
the
hand-­‐shake
signaling
is
a
stronger
patent
(=easier
to
be
defended
in
Court)
than
the
algorithm
and
equaGons!
5

5. Protezione dell’innovazione nel campo dell’ICT – CommTech Talks 2013
The balance of royalties
6
20 x IMU’12
(IMU’12=4B€)
+15 x IMU’12
-6 x IMU’12

6. Protezione dell’innovazione nel campo dell’ICT – CommTech Talks 2013
Value of damages and patents (an example)
7
IMU’12
4B€
Apple vs Samsung
(Aug.’12)
Ponte sullo stretto 8.5B€
(penale 300M€)

7. Protezione dell’innovazione nel campo dell’ICT – CommTech Talks 2013
R&D expenditure
8
R&D
expenditure
alone
is
not
enough
to
jusGfy
the
unbalance
between
EU
and
US

8. Protezione dell’innovazione nel campo dell’ICT – CommTech Talks 2013
Tablets and IPs
9
May 2005

9. Protezione dell’innovazione nel campo dell’ICT – CommTech Talks 2013
Standard & Standard Essential Patents
• In
complex
products
(e.g.,
cell-­‐phone)
every
patent
is
one
piece
in
a
complex
se]ng
• Standard
guarantees
the
inter-­‐operability
of
mulGvendor
devices
(scale
economies)
• «UMTS
device»
means
that
it
is
guarateed
interoperability
with
UMTS
network
• Patent
is
a
legal
tool
to
guarantee
the
monopoly
of
the
research
outcomes
• Every
industry
offers
to
others
its
patents
to
be
part
of
the
Standard
(e.g.,
GSM,
UMTS,
LTE,...)
at
FRAND
(Fair,
Reasonable,
and
Non-­‐Discriminatory)
licensing
condiGons.
• Licensing
a
patent
in
FRAND
terms
is
mandatory
before
being
accepted
to
become
part
of
a
standards
body
approved
technical
standard
(e.g.,
Qualcomm's
WCDMA
patents
make
up
part
of
the
UMTS
standard
put
together
by
the
3GPP)
• Every
patent
can
be
self-­‐declared
(to
ETSI)
as
EssenGal
for
the
Standard
and
it
is
in
a
database
of
EssenGal
Patents
(www.etsi.org/services/ipr-­‐database)
• Any
patent
self-­‐declared
as
«essenGal»
is
not
always
truly
essenGal.
10

10. Protezione dell’innovazione nel campo dell’ICT – CommTech Talks 2013
3GPP&3GPP2 essential patents
11
Approx. 21% of declared patents are actually essential
[Goodman & Myers, IEEE 2005]

11. Protezione dell’innovazione nel campo dell’ICT – CommTech Talks 2013
What’s in LTE?
12
Start of LTE
standardization
Number
of
patents
vs
Gme
shows
an
exploding
situaGon
where
players
are
preparing
for
a
big-­‐business

12. Protezione dell’innovazione nel campo dell’ICT – CommTech Talks 2013
It’s an equilibrium among existing players
• Patents
and
royalGes
are
part
of
peer-­‐to-­‐peer
equilibria
(between
inflow&ouhlow)
that
can
be
ruled
by
agreements,
IPR
exchange
or
Courts
• Any
new-­‐entry
is
impaired
by
IPR
with
respect
to
these
pre-­‐exisGng
equilibria
• Lawsuits
and
Court
are
heartquakes
that
change
these
equilibria
and
let
the
players
to
beYer
value
their
invenGons
13
€€
€