Dear Readers,
Standard Essential Patents (“SEPs”) have been at the center of a controversial debate for almost two decades. Most recently, a flurry of cases over 2020 from appellate courts in the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom significantly advanced and harmonized the law around global FRAND litigation. These three judgments by the Federal Court of Justice of Germany (Sisvel v. Haier), the Supreme Court of the UK (Unwired Planet v. Huawei), and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (FTC v. Qualcomm) may have changed the landscape in international FRAND litigation.
The papers in this edition of the Chronicle discuss and analyze these recent developments and address the possible future outlooks for thing to come in IP licensing internationally.
In September 2020, LeadershIP held an event titled Innovation Policy & the Role of Standards, IP, and Antitrust: a discussion between Walter Copan, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Andrei Iancu, Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent Trademark Office, and Makan Delrahim, Assistant Attorney General at the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. The panel discussed the role of IP, Antitrust, and Standards policies towards a broader innovation policy framework, highlighted recent developments such as the Joint PTO-DOJ-NIST Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards Essential Patents, and new initiatives within their respective agencies. We are pleased to kick off this final 2020 edition of the Chronicle with some highlights from this discussion.
We hope this collection of papers adds to the rich debate on the future of IP licensing.
As always, thank you to our great panel of authors.
Sincerely,
CPI Team*
*CPI thanks Qualcomm Inc. for their sponsorship of this issue of the Antitrust Chronicle. Sponsoring an issue of the Chronicle entails the suggestion of a specific topic or theme for discussion in a given publication. CPI determines whether the suggestion merits a dedicated conversation, as is the case with the current issue of the Chronicle, and takes steps to ensure that the viewpoints relevant to a balanced debate are invited to participate.
