Sony caught lying, possibly to EU antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager: Microsoft makes clearest public statement yet on 'parity' aspects of ten-year Call of Duty offer

Under merger laws as they stand, Microsoft's purchase of Activision Blizzard King (NASDAQ:ATVI) falls far short of what a regulatory agency could block: there is no theory of harm to competition itself. Sony is capitalizing on some antitrust enforcers' purely political concern over one of the world's largest tech companies buying one of the world's leading game makers. And in doing so, Sony appears to be lying to regulators and/or the media. That's a serious accusation, but Microsoft made it in public a few hours ago: Microsoft's communications lead Frank X. Shaw wrote on Twitter that he "hear[d] Sony is briefing people in Brussels claiming Microsoft is unwilling to offer them parity for Call of Duty if [it] acquire[s] Activision." According to the Microsoft spokesman, "[n]othing could be further from the truth":

We’ve been clear we’ve offered Sony a 10 year deal to give them parity on timing, content, features, quality, playability, and any other aspect of the game.

We’ve also said we’re happy to make this enforceable through a contract, regulatory agreements, or other means.

2/4

— Frank X. Shaw (@fxshaw) January 28, 2023

That's really a clear-cut definition of parity that would be justiciable if ever necessary:

• timing,

• content,

• features,

• quality,

• playability, and

• any other aspect of the game.

I'm not totally surprised. In November I noticed an untruthful representation made by Sony in a UK filing: they said Microsoft was being investigated over its cloud software licensing practices, but no regulator has launched formal investigations (even if Sony had known something at the time that I didn't, by now it would certainly be public). There may or may not be investigations further down the road, but Sony claimed so just on the basis of someone having brought a complaint.

Mr. Shaw or his Brussels-based colleagues must have heard, directly or indirectly, from persons who were told by Sony that Call of Duty on the PlayStation might somehow be degraded--relative to CoD on the Xbox--when Microsoft is in charge. The word "people" indicates a plurality of persons, and that also makes sense because I believe Microsoft would not bring a public accusation of lying based on a single person's claim without having obtained corroborating information.

But what kind of "people" is Sony lying to?

It must be one or both of the following options:

• European Commmission EVP Margrethe Vestager, who had a meeting with Sony's PlayStation chief Jim Ryan on Wednesday according to Reuters; and/or

• Brussels-based journalists who cover tech competition cases.

The latter is more plausible than the former, but neither can be ruled out given that this revelation comes on the heels of that EC-Sony high-level meeting.

Journalists are more likely to confront Microsoft with what Sony said. There could have been conversations in which Microsoft told reporters that the deal was going to ensure total parity between the PlayStation and Xbox versions of Call of Duty, and then some journalists said "but Sony told us the opposite."

It isn't inconceivable, however, that what Sony said in the meeting with the EU's antitrust chief somehow leaked. More than ten years ago I had a meeting with one of Mrs. Vestager's predecessors at the Berlaymont (the EC's main building in Brussels) about another tech merger. The commissioner had one member of her cabinet and one of the two co-leads of the case team on her side of the table; we were also three. After the meeting, we talked to outside counsel for two other parties opposing the deal. Nothing leaked, but it was a small meeting and the fact that it took place wasn't reported in the media.

What weighs against the hypothesis of Sony having lied to Mrs. Vestager is that the Commission's Directorate General for Competition (DG COMP) presumably has a copy of the ten-year license offer in its case file. Anything Mr. Ryan said could be verified by just reading the proposed contract. However, Mrs. Vestager herself will probably not read an entire license agreement: she's in charge of competition enforcement and digital industry policy, and can't read each and every document from a merger case. So it's possible that Sony lied to her, hoping that even if the case team told her that the deal was clear on parity, some sliver of doubt would remain.

There can be no doubt that the ten-year license agreement came up during the Wednesday meeting. At this stage, where the European Commission was reported by MLex and others to be preparing a Statement of Objections (SO), Mr. Ryan was not going to give Mrs. Vestager a tutorial on what a video game console is. This is the stage where remedies matter (even if there is actually nothing to be remedied in the first place).

Here's the comment with which I shared the news of that meeting:

That's interesting. I wonder how EVP @Vestager views Sony's rejection of a 10-year Call of Duty license. Serious and reasonable complainants are interested in their concerns being addressed. https://t.co/3L9nojY0zH

— Florian Mueller (@FOSSpatents) January 26, 2023

It's interesting that the original prediction of the SO being handed down this week did not pan out. I have no doubt that when MLex reported it, it was indeed the Commission's internal schedule, though anything can always change before a formal decision is adopted.

Wednesday would have been the day for the vote: that is the day the College of Commissioners meets every week except during the European Parliament's Strasbourg plenary weeks (which this week wasn't). Instead of a vote on the SO, what happened was Mrs. Vestager's meeting with Sony. It might have been Sony's last chance to convince her that the commitments offered by Microsoft do not satisfactorily address the issue.

Another thing happened on Wednesday. Politico's Samuel Stolton reported, based on information from four unnamed sources, that DG COMP is "planning to open an antitrust probe into Microsoft over its video and messaging service Teams."

There is obviously no factual link between the merger and that unilateral-conduct topic. It's a coincidence that both topics are on the agenda at around the same time. But it could be that the Commission will simply make a rational and pragmatic decision about the Activision Blizzard deal while deciding to investigate Salesforce subsidiary Slack's Office-Teams tying allegations. Again, it would be a coincidence, but it would show that the Commission is not giving Microsoft any preferential treatment, just that the Activision Blizzard deal simply doesn't raise issues, especially not when a hard and fast ten-year license agreement can serve as a de facto structural remedy.

On Thursday, Bloomberg reported that, according to a former U.S. antitrust official, the FTC rushed to its in-house court in December with its Activision Blizzard complaint in order to discourage the EC from striking an agreement with Microsoft. I don't know whether this is true (the Capitol Forum disagrees), but it could be. There definitely are interdependencies between regulatory processes, as evidenced by what Microsoft's counsel said at the first hearing in the FTC case and indicated by the postponement announced by the Commerce Commission of New Zealand. But Washington doesn't remote-control Brussels.

Bloomberg reporter Nick Turner jokingly called this an "America first" policy: first in a chronological sense (first to file), but obviously not in a policy sense. Prior to Lina Khan becoming FTC chair, it would have been unthinkable for a U.S. government agency to pursue the objective of derailing a merger U.S.-U.S. merger that raises no legal issues, and to try to use foreign competition authorities for that purpose.

I doubt that Mrs. Vestager, her aides and her services (i.e., DG COMP) were amused when they heard of that Bloomberg article. The FTC-DG COMP phone call that the article references undoubtedly took place; even the Capitol Forum does not dispute that fact. But the notion of an FTC in-house lawsuit serving to influence the Commission's independent decision on whether certain merger commitments are more than good enough to facilitate clearance is a bit of an insult. I'm sure the Commission won't be influenced either way: neither will it engage in a race to the bottom in terms of who is prepared to ignore the applicable legal framework to a greater extent than their peers, nor do I think the Commission will grant clearance just to prove its independence after the Bloomberg article.

In my observation, some of the reports on the EC-Sony meeting implied that it was a win for Sony to get that audience. But the opposite is possible: it could be that the meeting was held to give Sony one last chance to show why a justiciable PlayStation-Xbox parity commitment for what is an eternity in this industry should not be accepted. Sony may have failed to make that showing, and then there might not even be an SO. We will find out soon.

In other Microsoft-ActivisionBlizzard news, Sony filed a new agreed (with Microsoft) motion for an extension of time (PDF) to bring a potential motion to quash or limit Microsoft's subpoena. Further to the first extension, the deadline would have been on Friday (January 27). It has now been pushed back further to Wednesday (February 1). All that we can conclude from this is that the parties are still talking, but that they apparently find it hard to reach an agreement. Sony may have more problems with the truth than most people would have thought. They must have something to hide.

Microsoft's Twitter thread about the nature of the ten-year offer and Sony lying about it creates an interesting situation. Sony either has to contradict--which could lead to further public discussion, possibly even the publication of the entire agreement (with or without some of the commercially relevant numbers redacted)--or, by remaining silent, Sony fails to dispute that it lied. What makes all of this even more serious is that potentially Mr. Ryan himself was lyin'. But who--other than a liar--would not refute that kind of allegation?

Share|

Former Advocate General and impeached judge embarrasses top EU court as he bashes his successor's 'Super League' antitrust opinion at Concurrences, Clifford Chance event in Brussels

In most circumstances, a former Advocate General (AG) of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) hits a new low for speaking out publicly against one of his successor's opinions at a time when the judges are deliberating. Such conduct is as distasteful as it is disrespectful, and it was troubling to watch a Concurrences event yesterday that was co-sponsored by Clifford Chance, Compass Lexecon, and one of their mutual clients for that very purpose. But the scandal-ridden career of former Belgian politician, ECJ AG, and ECJ judge Melchior Wathelet sr. has its own coordinate system.

The European Parliament broke "new constitutional ground" when it impeached Mr. Wathelet in the form of a legally non-binding resolution calling for his resignation. The man had encouraged the early release of convicted perverts such as Marc Dutroux, who not entirely unforeseeably went on to murder at least four girls. According to German newsweekly Der Spiegel, he was "embroiled in virtually every Belgian political scandal" besides the Dutroux case, one of which involved toxic waste and a donation by the perpetrators to Mr. Wathelet, who even heaped praise on them.

Mr. Wathelet bookended yesterday's event at the Brussels Plaza hotel with an opening keynote (which went way over time) and his final reflections. In the end he declared himself "pessimistic" that the top EU court would concur with him and the other--less controversial, but also far lower-profile--speakers. The whole multi-hour event was nothing but a thinly-veiled call from Brussels on the Luxembourg-based 15 judges of the Grand Chamber to reject the (actually well-reasoned and balanced) opinion AG Athanasios Rantos handed down in the European Superleague Company v. UEFA case last month.

Without a single exception--which is out of character for Concurrences--speaker after speaker after speaker had only one message: "Don't adopt the AG opinion, or the sky will fall." For the avoidance of doubt, the two journalists who merely moderated the panels--Carmen Perales from PaRR and Bloomberg's Irene García Pérez--cannot be blamed. The Friday the 13th conference was all about propaganda and venting frustration.

The key sponsor was A22, a marketing firm that would like to commercialize a breakaway soccer tournament named European Super League should it ever rear its unpopular head again. At this point, only three professional teams (Real Madrid, FC Barcelona, and Italy's Juventus FC) are supporting A22. Those clubs, partly directly and partly indirectly, are clients of Clifford Chance as well as Compass Lexecon, an economic advocacy firm that also does a lot of work on standard-essential patents. For Clifford Chance, whom I wish luck with the EU antitrust complaints they brought on Spotify's and Epic Games' behalf against Apple, it must be very frustrating to be on the losing track in a case that gets so much media attention. The budget is small (reportedly only a couple million dollars) compared to those tech cases, but no "industry" gets the general public more interested in Europe (and even beyond) than top-flight soccer.

Not only Mr. Wathelet but also a little-known Dutch law professor couldn't hide his skepticism when he said that "if the Court adopts the AG opinion, it may be the end of the Super League project." Somehow A22 and Clifford Chance must have forgotten to brief him: in their spin-doctoring efforts, they claim that the AG opinion favors their cause. But they are inconsistent at any rate as they stress the possibility of the ECJ reaching different conclusions: if the AG opinion was great for them, they'd advocate its adoption.

It is undeniably true that the judges make the decision. Statistically, most judgments are either entirely or materially consistent with the AG opinion. In this case--as I brought up at a recent Madrid conference I attended via Teams--the AG opinion is not just one key player's views: more than 20 EU and European Economic Area Member States, the EU Council (where the governments of the EU Member States cast their votes), the European Parliament, and the European Commission took such positions as well. So far, the so-called Super League has convinced only one Spanish trade judge to the effect of a preliminary injunction and this preliminary reference to the ECJ--and after the case was reassigned to another judge, the PI was lifted, partly for reasons that have now been validated by AG Rantos.

One of the points yesterday's panelists--more accurately, propagandists--were trying to drive home was that those 20+ Member States don't count because it's all just politics. However, the Super League lobbied those governments with help from its lawyers as well as Flint. To no avail, though; apart from Luxembourg, where one of the Super League entities is registered. I wouldn't underestimate the competence of government officials who work on sports policy day in, day out. They know more about the subject than the former German TV exec who is now running A22, the lawyers from Clifford Chance, the hired guns from Compass Lexecon, and the lobbyists from Flint.

Compass Lexecon incredibly makes the conclusory assertion that Super League-style concentration of wealth would benefit smaller clubs, and points to "solidarity" that would be totally voluntary as opposed to structural. It's amazing what they are prepared to say with a straight face, as they must know that the soccer ecosystem is unanimously opposed to the agenda of the three clubs behind this litigation.

Dutch outlier MEP Antonius "Toine" Manders stressed the separation of powers yesterday and said that only in a soccer context, politicians become so involved in litigation. He doesn't see the log in his eye: he personally attended the ECJ hearing in July and gave interviews. He doesn't normally do that either, nor has he been tasked with judicial oversight. Mr. Manders has repeatedly managed to get elected to the European Parliament on different ballots, but has never been put in a position of power. Since I met him a long time ago, I can see why he is ineligible for higher office.

By contrast, a rival event held the previous day featured former Polish professional soccer player and now-MEP Tomasz Frankowski (in the form of a recorded video), who recalled where the vast majority of the European Parliament stands.

The Concurrences event, however, was not only one-sided but also low-quality on average in terms of the background and reputation of the speakers. Take German economist Oliver Budzinski: he was introduced as someone who also does research on Big Tech antitrust matters. In that context, which I follow closely, I had never once heard of him. I asked around, and a top-notch antitrust litigator told me that Mr. Budzinski "does not play a role" in that regulatory context. I looked up some of his papers, including his opposition (potentially due to close ties with Google and/or Amazon) to the EU Digital Markets Act. It makes no sense to me that someone who didn't want stricter antitrust rules for the world's most powerful monopolists simultaneously demands rigid enforcement of existing rules against non-profits.

One attendee asked the panel why a group of 12 private entities (referring to the clubs who founded the Super League, though only three are still actively involved) would be in a better position to "safeguard" soccer values than UEFA, the existing European body. Mr. Budzinski's nonsensical answer was that UEFA, too, is a private (as opposed to governmental) entity. The question was not private vs. public, but inclusion. UEFA has 55 national member associations representing huge numbers of clubs (for instance, Germany alone has more than 30,000 of them). In Europe, there are approximately 50,000 professional soccer players, while the Super League as originally envisioned would have employed fewer than 1,000 of them.

At the LaLiga / Sports and Citizenship conference on Thursday, which I mentioned before, various speakers acknowledged that there is room for improvement in the current system. No one suggested nationalization (that was just Mr. Budzinski's way to restate the question). But a broadbased pyramid of organizations is inherently more representative of the ecosystem as a whole than a cartel of a small number of entities.

Then there was an Italian professor whose slides (overloaded with text, and with multiple typos) would not even make a 10th-grader proud.

An exception among the academics there was Oxford professor Stephen Weatherill because he enjoys a greater reputation than the others combined. But he is not necessarily in favor of the Super League: instead, he'd prefer an EU legislative initiative to reconcile Art. 165 TFEU (the EU's constitutional recognition of the specific nature of sport) with Art. 101 (cartels) and Art. 102 (monopoly abuse). He appears to be concerned that the AG opinion would obviate the need for legislation, though I believe busy European governments and lawmakers consider that fact a plus.

I asked why he thought the ECJ would legislate from the bench (I'm restating it in a shorter form here) when the legislative intent was actually to protect exactly the European Sport Model as it existed when the Lisbon Treaty (with the new Art. 165) was adopted in 2007. Professor Weatherill made a remark according to which legislative intent shouldn't be given much weight. But my point was not about whether legislative intent is the ultimate authority. The ECJ simply has to reconcile conventional competition law with a sports-specific statute. Professor Weatherill and a couple of other speakers faulted AG Rantos for recognizing the constitutional status of the European Sport Model as the EU institutions and 20+ Member States described it in connection with the European Superleague Company case (see the European Commission's 2022 Study on the European sport model (PDF)).

It is not ultra vires for the ECJ to define how a sports-specific statute impacts the interpretation and application of conventional antitrust and cartel rules. And in doing so, why shouldn't the ECJ take heed of what the legislative powers that be had in mind when they adopted the statute and (consistently) when they gave their input in connection with this case?

Professor Weatherill's answer focused on something else, however. He said that if one wanted to turn to the legislative history, it was that sports bodies were seeking an exemption from antitrust rules. Instead, the statute as it stands today was adopted. That argument doesn't convince me: in most cases, one group of stakeholders may not get everything it asks for, but if it gets something very significant, that doesn't mean it lost.

Professor Weatherill sidestepped the actual question. His point was that the AG went too far by reading the European Sport Model into Art. 165 TFEU. But what other model than the one that European lawmakers had in mind then and seek to protect now should the statute be about? When there is such widespread consensus--apart from the speakers at yesterday's event with their minority views--the AG is, in my view, right as a matter of legal policy and cannot be accused of proposing to legislate from the bench.

The ECJ has not set a ruling date. We'll see how long it takes, and what comes out of it. Yesterday's event was inconducive to Concurrences' reputation as a neutral debate organizer and may have been counterproductive for the purposes of A22, its backers, and its advisers. The bankruptcy of their arguments was on display, as was their frustration that their efforts have so far failed to get traction. The ECJ may not be amused that a former AG and judge (whose impeachment was a disgrace for the institution) tries to influence deliberations in an inappropriate form, "courtesy" of Clifford Chance and Compass Lexecon...

Share|

Upcoming Brussels conference on component-level SEP licensing: final program and roster of speakers

The hottest SEP-related topic at this time is the question of whether--and on what terms--implementers of FRAND-pledged standards should have access to exhaustive component-level licenses. It's relevant to antitrust enforcement, litigation, and policy-making.

On Tuesday, November 12, FOSS Patents' Component-Level SEP Licensing conference will be held at the Sofitel Le Louise. Tickets are available via EventBrite. Here's the final program (with all panelists named):

08:30	Registration & Reception
09:00	Panel discussion on component-level licensing (antitrust and contract law) Pat Treacy (Partner, Bristows; and Deputy Judge, England & Wales High Court) Paul Lugard (Partner, BakerBotts) John J. "Jay" Jurata (Partner, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) Christian Donle (Professor, Weißensee; and Partner, Preu Bohlig & Partner)
10:00	"All Comers" Or Not? Access to Licenses Under Contract Laws Moderator: Dave Djavaherian (Founder, PacTechLaw) Panelists: Philippe Stoffel-Munck (Professor, Université Paris I – Panthéon Sorbonne) Marc Hansen (Partner, Latham & Watkins)
11:00	Patent Licensing: Implications for Business Moderator: Ief Daems (Legal Director Antitrust EMEAR, Cisco Systems) Seeking Component-Level Licenses: Experiences From the Field Svein-Egil Nielsen (CTO & Strategy Director, Nordic Semiconductor) Metin Taskin (CTO, AirTies) Rasmus Søby Dupont (Head of IP, Kamstrup) Patent royalties in the IoT industry: an economics perspective Joachim Henkel (Professor of Technology and Innovation Management, Technical University of Munich)
12:30	Lunch
13:30	The 2019 FTC v. Qualcomm Ruling: Key Holdings, Next Steps, Global Impact Moderator: Jay Jurata (Partner, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) Judge Lucy H. Koh's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and remedial orders Jay Jurata (Partner, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) Licensing practitioner's perspective on fallout from FTC v. Qualcomm ruling Eric Stasik (Founder and Director, Avvika) Could Judge Koh's reasoning be adopted under Art. 102 TFEU? Evelina Kurgonaitė (Secretary General, Fair Standards Alliance)
15:00	Afternoon Coffee Break
15:30	Antitrust Complaints Over Component-Level Licensing Moderator: Rebekka Porath (Director IP Policy EMEA, Intel Corporation) Antitrust complaints over SEP licensing Rafał Sikorski (Professor, Adam Mickiewicz University; and Senior Partner, SMM Legal) Continental antitrust lawsuit against Avanci Kent Baker (Head of IP Strategy & Licensing, u-blox)
16:00	BONUS SESSION: Access to Injunctive Relief Moderator: Edmund Mangold (Patent Counsel, BMW) Evolution of national case law on SEP injunctions since Huawei v. ZTE Bram Nijhof (Counsel, Taylor Wessing) The proportionality requirement under the EU enforcement directive Maurits Dolmans (Partner, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton) The German patent reform debate Moderator: Florian Mueller (Founder, FOSS Patents) Panelists: Messrs. Dolmans, Mangold, and Nijhof

Follow @FOSSpatents

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Share|

Brussels conference (12 Nov) on component-level SEP licensing: roster of speakers almost finalized

I have an update on the upcoming (November 12, 2019) Brussels conference on component-level standard-essential patent (SEP) licensing (for a reminder, here's the registration link). We'll have a roster of really great speakers representing a diversity of perspectives and opinions. I will soon publish the final conference program with all names, but for a preview, let me introduce the moderators and speakers I can already announce--in the order of their planned appearances:

The first session in the morning will be a discussion panel touching on the implications of component-level licensing, or companies' refusal to engage in it, from an antitrust and contract law perspective. There will be a total of four panelists, and I'll ask the questions. As of today I can announce two of the panelists: Pat Treacy is a competition lawyer and partner with Bristows, and a part-time judge on the Chancery Division of the High Court of England and Wales. Paul Lugard is a partner at BakerBotts who has represented clients from many industries (including, but not limited to, consumer electronics and telecommunications) vis-à-vis the European Commission.

Dave Djavaherian, the founder of PacTech Law, served as associate general counsel at Broadcom (I met him at the time as certain Broadcom customers faced lawsuits in Germany). Dave has a wealth of experience in licensing, litigating, and arbitrating SEP matters--and is deeply involved with standards development and policy making (for an example, as vice chair of CWA2).

Two executives from innovative European companies will share experiences in seeking component-level licenses: Nordic Semiconductor's CTO Svein-Egil Nielsen, and AirTies' co-founder and CTO Metin Taskin.

Professor Joachim Henkel teaches technology and innovation management at the Technical University of Munich, and was a visiting scholar at University College London, MIT Sloan School of Management, Harvard Business School, and Singapore Management University. Professor Henkel recently updated his paper entitled "How many patents are valid? Extent, causes, and remedies for latent patent invalidity," the first version of which I mentioned five years ago. His focus at next month's conference will be on the economics of patent licensing.

John "Jay" Jurata is an Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe partner and the leader of the firm's global antitrust practice. I've linked to some of his writings in the past, such as an article on Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim's SEP policy positions and one on the Unwired Planet global FRAND rate case that the Supreme Court of the UK will hear in about a week from today.

Eric Stasik, the founder and director of consulting firm Avvika AB, provides assistance and guidance to firms engaged in commercial patent license negotiations (both patent holders and potential licensees), particularly within the field of mobile communications. I've seen his expert reports in various SEP cases involving FRAND licensing questions, and while we've often disagreed on LinkedIn, we get along well and maintain a constructive dialog. Eric's 20+ years of SEP licensing experience include 10 years of working for Ericsson (1992-2002), initially as a senior patent engineer and later as Drector of IPR and Licensing for Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (the corporate parent of the entire Ericsson group). He'll comment on the fallout from FTC v. Qualcomm against the background of his hands-on licensing expertise.

Evelina Kurgonaite became Executive Director of the Fair Standards Alliance earlier this year. Previously, she was Head of Policy Strategy and Legal Counsel at Samsung. She also worked for PaRR (Policy and Regulatory Report). Evelina will analyze the the FTC v. Qualcomm decision from the perspective of whether a similar outcome would be possible under EU antitrust law.

Rafał Sikorski is a professor of law (with a focus on IP as well as competition law) at Adam Mickiewicz University (Poznan, Poland) and a senior partner at SMM Legal. He's a sought-after conference speaker. He gave very well-received speeches at a Munich conference on injunctive relief earlier this year (where Judge Robart and (soon-to-be Lord) Justice Arnold also spoke). At my Brussels conference, Professor Sikorski will talk about certain SEP-related antitrust complaints.

Kent Baker, Head of IP Strategy & Licensing at u-blox (a company headquartered in Switzerland and selling positioning and wireless communication technologies around the globe), will discuss the U.S. Continental v. Avanci et al. case.

Edmund Mangold, a co-inventor of multiple patents, is patent counsel at BMW. Mr. Mangold will introduce the panel on access to injunctive relief and later join fellow panelists Maurits Dolmans, a Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton partner who represents major clients such as Google, IBM (for whom he recently secured unconditional approval of the acquisition of Red Hat) and Walt Disney in the EU (and is also admitted to practice in the United States), and Bram Nijhof, who heads Taylor Wessing's competition, EU and trade practice group in the Netherlands. I will ask the panelists a few questions about patent injunctions, not only related to SEPs but also with a view to the ongoing patent reform process in Germany.

This conference will touch on certain hot topics that some people prefer not to talk (or even not to think) about. I took this initiative because I felt it was time to organize an event with that focus. It will be an honor to welcome such top-notch speakers in a month from today. And if you'd like to come and listen, here's a link to the registration page, again.

As I've mentioned on another occasion, there will be a comparable event in the San Francisco Bay Area in mid-January, and I expect to be able to share some more information on that one next month.

Follow @FOSSpatents

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Share|

Component-Level SEP Licensing Conference -- Brussels, 12 November 2019 -- Program & Registration

As promised, here's the detailed program for FOSS Patents' Chipset-Level SEP Licensing conference, which will be held at the Sofitel Le Louise hotel in Brussels on Tuesday, November 12, 2019. (There will soon be news regarding a similar event in Northern California in mid-January.)

You can find the program as well as ticket registration forms on the EventBrite page for this conference. For your convenience, the conference program is included below. The names of the moderators and panelists will be announced soon.

08:30 AM	Registration & Reception
09:00 AM	Introductory Session
	Patent exhaustion and attempted workarounds Technical aspects of embodiment of patented invention by component
10:00 AM	"All Comers" Or Not? Access to Licenses Under Contract Laws
	The ETSI FRAND declarations and the licensability positions taken in litigation Summary judgment in FTC v. Qualcomm based on ATIS and TIA FRAND pledges
10:30 AM	Morning Coffee Break
11:00 AM	Patent Licensing: Implications for Business
	Seeking component-level licenses: experiences from the field Patent royalties in the IoT industry: an economics perspective
12:30 PM	Lunch
01:30 PM	The 2019 FTC v. Qualcomm Ruling: Key Holdings, Next Steps, Global Impact
	Judge Lucy H. Koh's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and remedial orders Procedural road map Consistent and conflicting earlier decisions by U.S. courts Could Judge Koh's reasoning be adopted under Art. 102 TFEU?
03:00 PM	Afternoon Coffee Break
03:30 PM	Antitrust Complaints Over Component-Level Licensing
	EU antitrust complaints over SEP licensing Continental antitrust lawsuit against Avanci
04:00 PM	Bonus Session: Access to Injunctive Relief
	Evolution of national case law on SEP injunctions since Huawei v. ZTE The proportionality requirement under the EU enforcement directive State of play in the German patent reform debate
05:00 PM	Reception

Again, the signup page is https://www.eventbrite.com/e/component-level-sep-licensing-tickets-74853834835.

In May I had already written about this idea. After further thought--and discussions that led, among other things, to the inclusion of the "bonus session" on injunctive relief--the conference program took its current shape. Brussels, the de facto capital of the EU, turned out to be the most logical location for the European edition of this conference.

Component-level licensing is presently the single hottest topic relating to standard-essential patents (SEPs). I stepped forward a few months ago because I thought the time was ripe for a conference that would focus on this aspect of SEP licensing. I look forward to welcoming many of you on November 12, and to interesting presentations and discussions!

For questions relating to the conference, please don't hesitate to contact me at fosspatents@gmail.com.

Follow @FOSSpatents

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Share|