Fool’s errand with fallacies in administrative essentiality checking

This is my second article on some topics discussed by my panel on “transparency” and in other sessions at the Patents in Telecoms and the Internet of Things conference in London recently. My first article, also published here, was on how value and royalty costs in standards and SEPs are passed along the supply chain to consumers.

The European Commission’s proposed essentiality checking and patent counting at the EUIPO is troubling. While parties are entitled to present whatever methods and studies they wish to imply Standard Essential Patent (SEP) portfolio strength in licensing negotiations or to the courts in litigation, the proposed registry with mandatory essentiality checking on random samples of patents will give a false sense of security on the applicability, accuracy and reliability of such checks, measures and any royalty charges derived from them. Essentiality determinations and patent counts provide a poor and unproven gauge of patent portfolio strength. Methods fail a key integrity test for any evaluation or measurement system because results are not reproducible. Despite the EUIPO being ordained the official authority on determining patent essentiality, its checking will be as contestable technically as for private evaluators and their studies that already check essentiality, count patents and invariably disagree with each other. Nevertheless, even though determinations are non-binding they will have significant sway with the courts.

A European Parliament press release issued following a January 2024 Legal Affairs Committee vote to adopt “New rules to promote standard-setting innovation in new technologies” states that “in 5G almost 85% of the standard essential patents are in fact non-essential. The new essentiality test will stop the occurrence of over-declaration”.

Some studies do indeed indicate essentiality rates of only 15% (i.e. 100%-85% = 15%) or even less in some cases—which might well be correct—but there is no evidence to support the latter contention that checking will improve the declaration behaviour of patent owners. There is no shame or sanction for over-declaration. Bias in essentiality checking—that is most severe at such low essentiality rates—means that the effects of over-declaration can only be somewhat moderated by checking. Over-declaration can never be anywhere near eliminated. The bias incentivises over-declaration despite checking. Rather than stopping over-declaration, institutionalized checking by the EUIPO will likely motivate patent owners to game the system by declaring even more patents of dubious essentiality.

Essentiality is subjective and only one among various factors affecting patent strength

Patent strength is a function of validity, infringement and technical contribution, as well as essentiality to the standards. While some parts of standards go unimplemented, are rarely used, become obsolete or are peripheral to where standards provide most innovative value, other parts are fundamental to very significant improvements with new technologies such as 5G. For example, various radio access network technology improvements have increased network speeds and capacities one hundred thousand-fold (e.g. from 10 kbps to 1 Gbps) since the introduction of 2G data in the mid-1990s.

Some characteristics can be objectively, reliably and reproducibly checked, others cannot. Patent essentiality and validity are matters of judgment where different assessors will often disagree about what are ostensibly yes-no decisions. As stated by the judges’ decisions in Unwired Planet v Huawei and TCL v Ericsson, respectively:

“Based on my assessment of both experts, I am sure the disagreement represents cases in which reasonable people can differ.” (Paragraph 335.)

“Given the somewhat subjective nature of these determinations, ‘disagreements’ is probably a more accurate label than ‘error.’" (Footnote 16.)

By way of analogy: on the one hand, selections of beauty pageant and international song contest winners are also subjective tasks that can be swayed by judges’ predilections and do not have reproducible results with different assessors; on the other hand, and in marked contrast to all the above, checks such as the UK’s annual car roadworthiness MOT test is highly objective and reproducible. Two different test centres would reliably come up with the same pass-fail result for the same car after verifying that brakes work, turn indicators flash, and measuring that tyre tread depth is sufficient, among other checks.

Determining true essentiality is made more difficult by the fact that patent counters have very different objectives to those agreed by consensus in Standard Setting Organizations. ETSI merely wants to ensure standards such as 5G are not blocked by demanding patent owners declare whether they believe a patent might be or might become essential. ETSI never checks essentiality and does not want to do so. Essentiality declarations such as those in ETSI’s IPR database were never intended to be used for royalty rate determinations in Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing, as sought by the Commission with the EUIPO’s registry and additional steps of essentiality checking and patent counting.

Only the courts can definitively determine which patents are truly essential, which are not invalid and valuate portfolios. Cases in litigation illustrate how uncertain everything is and how expert opinions differ. The challenges in assessing essentiality were extensively discussed at the conference. Issues include interpretation of patent claims and that the scope of these can be entwined with validity. Prosecution history can be pertinent in making determinations. As patents are amended to cover the standard they can include what has been contributed to the standard by others. With many patents being found invalid by the courts, validity should not be ignored on the path to determining value, as it is in the Commission’s proposed checking. Validity can be the most significant factor affecting SEP value.

In FRAND litigation, highly experienced top minds including judges, experts and those representing the parties spend many months at multi-million dollar costs evaluating and deliberating—with various disagreements on essentiality and validity of litigated patents prior to judgment—even though typically only a few patents are examined.

If all that work including analysis of claim charts and patent prosecution histories is actually required to do a proper job on only a few patents, how can we trust the accuracy of the EUIPO’s experts examining orders of magnitude more patents and whose determinations ignore the crucial issue of validity? While the courts tend only to have the resources to do the required assessments on no more than a handful of patents in each case, there are many tens of thousands of patents and patent families declared essential to standards such as 5G. It is unsurprising that the UK courts have tended to reject patent counting as a means of determining FRAND royalties, except in some cases as a cross-check for determinations primarily based on comparable licensing agreements.

Unscalable checking

One proposed way dealing with the insurmountable task of checking all a standard’s declared patents is to check only random samples of them. The hope is that it would be possible to check a manageably small number of them very thoroughly and accurately. Consensus is that accuracy can best be achieved with the preparation and use of claim charts.

However, there are several problems with this approach, as illustrated in my empirical research in 2021 and 2022:

• Even when claim charts are used to assist in determining essentiality, different assessors still disagree widely in their determinations with agreement on only around 83% of them. That’s not as good as it might seem when one considers that different assessors can be expected to agree on precisely 50% of them if one assessor was making determinations randomly based on the flip of a coin. If two assessors disagree in their determinations, at least one of them must be wrong. However, if two different assessors are in agreement, that does not mean the determination is correct.
  
  
• Inaccurate determinations cause a substantial upward systematic bias in essentiality rates derived after checking. My empirical research shows that the proportion of false positive essentiality determinations will greatly outnumber false negatives at essentiality rates of 15% or less.
  
  
• Sample sizes need to be large (e.g. >1,000) if true essentiality rates are at 15% or below and if, for example, accuracy within ± 15% at the 95% confidence level is required. Sampling error as a proportion of true essentiality rate increases at lower and lower levels of true essentiality.
  
  
• Sampled patents cannot be appealed and reassessed without destroying the integrity of the sample. For example, if one in ten patents is sampled the determination has a 10x effect implied in the entire population count. With inevitable selection bias in appealed patents, “corrected” determinations will have a distorted and magnified effect implied in the overall population.
  
  
• However, it would be to deny justice not to allow some kind of appeals procedure on determinations made by a public authority. This issue could weigh heavily in FRAND dispute litigation.
  
  
• It’s very costly. Ericsson testified in TCL v Ericsson that it took 50 man-hours per patent to prepare claim charts.

What the Commission is seeking to concoct at the EUIPO will produce yet more patent counting studies, somewhat like what PA Consulting has been producing regularly for years and that several other firms have published from time to time. PA’s studies are widely used because others use and seemingly take heed of their results—not because they are proven to be accurate and reliable, because it is impossible to prove that. Here’s what Justice Smith had to say in the Optis v. Apple judgment:

“So, as with validity – but for different reasons – making a judgement about levels of essentiality in the stack is unreliable and unsafe.

My conclusion is that – accepting entirely that PA Consulting seeks to do a careful job – for the purposes of a judicial determination of what is fact, the PA Consulting/Optis approach to determining Stack size (or the figure for the denominator) is not to be relied upon.

I accept that were a reliable qualitative assessment to be possible, that might well be preferable. But an unreliable qualitative assessment – especially where even the magnitude of the error is unknown – is not (in my judgement) an acceptable metric to use when seeking to answer the FRAND Question.

I cannot use the PA Consulting data as a metric in answering the FRAND Question.”

Patent counting is simplistic

Even checking both essentiality and validity is woefully insufficient in determining patent value. It’s widely recognized that different patents vary in value enormously—by orders of magnitude from virtually worthless to some real gems. The significance of a patent’s technical contribution to a standard and value in implementation can vary from being seldom used or of marginal worth to being fundamental functionality that might enable major cost savings or increases in customer utility or revenues to be generated. Convenience aside, there is, therefore, no basis for assuming that portfolio value is in proportion to any kind of patent count (i.e. of declared, found essential or found not invalid patents). On the contrary, some patent owners likely have a much larger proportion or number of gems than others. However, even approximately how much more is an unanswered empirical question.

Ministry of Patent Counting and Red Tape

The Commission’s proposals for registering, checking and counting patents, among other demands in the proposed legislation, is also in conflict with the stated objectives of European leaders.

French and German leaders Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz recently co-wrote an op-ed in the Financial Times setting out some laudable objectives:

“With an ambitious industrial policy, we can enable the development and rollout of key technologies of tomorrow, such as AI, quantum technologies, space, 5G/6G, biotechnologies, net zero technologies, mobility and chemicals.

We call for strengthening the EU’s technological capabilities by promoting cutting-edge research and innovation and necessary infrastructures.

We call for an ambitious bureaucracy reduction agenda to deliver on simpler and faster administrative procedures and cutting bureaucratic burdens for businesses of all sizes. We welcome the European Commission’s initiative to reduce reporting obligations for our companies by 25 per cent.” (hyperlink added)

The Commission’s proposed demands for patent registration at the EUIPO, together with preparation and submission of additional information such as patent claim charts will substantially increase administrative burdens for European companies such as Ericsson and Nokia that remain dependent on SEP licensing income. These new burdens will cause friction, delays and diminution in the well established, highly effective and self-sustaining innovation loop in which licensing fees are used to fund further R&D, leading to the creation of yet more valuable new technologies.

Better to have scarce and costly technical experts innovating and prosecuting their own patents, or designing and testing new products, rather than tying up hundreds of them generating additional information for checkers and in doing the checking—at patent owners and at the EUIPO, respectively.

Transparency about what?

There was consensus at the conference that greater transparency could help with FRAND licensing for SEPs. However, rather than burdening licensees with voluminous disclosures on patent claims and with delays while conciliators deliberate about aggregate royalties and technical experts check patents for essentiality, it would be better to have licensors and licensees disclose more about actual licensing. This should include terms in licensing agreements and information on licensed trade including volumes and prices. If parties are unwilling to make such information public, then it could be disclosed to a confidential repository with limited access, information anonymised and other safeguards. Let’s find out more about what’s happening already and rely on that, rather than trying to make things up with top-down rate setting.

In Q&A under the Chatham House Rule, I asked another panel whether a modicum of accuracy and reliability can be achieved in essentiality checking to determine patent portfolio strength. Bad news — no. Good news — it’s probably not necessary because most licences get agreed, regardless.

While I believe it would be best for the Commission to abandon is proposed checking and rate setting, if it does proceed it should consider recommendations about how to do that competently and with recognition of limitations, as explained in my publications cited with hyperlinks in this article.


Keith Mallinson, founder of WiseHarbor, has more than 25 years of experience in the telecommunications industry as a research analyst, consultant and testifying expert witness.

European policies for competition and growth in ICT through regulation of Big Tech, network operators and standard-essential technology licensing

 Big Tech companies have profited greatly from dominant market positions while riding largely for free over the top of fixed and mobile telecom networks and devices. The entire Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) ecosystem is enabled by a variety of interoperability technologies including 5G cellular, WiFi and HEVC/H.265 video compression that are openly available in published standards and embedded in components and end-products. How much, if anything, should beneficiaries pay for the capabilities upon which their standard-based implementations are built?

There are great expectations that technology and market developments will provide yet more stellar economic growth and improved consumer welfare in ICT with new innovations in Artificial Intelligence (AI), the metaverse (e.g. Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR)) and the Internet of Things (IoT). This is a high stakes game with some players having fared rather better than others as computing, communications, applications and Internet-based services have advanced over the last couple of decades. Big Tech companies continue growing handsomely to command a large and ever-increasing proportion of total ecosystem revenues, as I have noted here before.

European policies to regulate ICT markets in various ways that will redistribute rewards and costs are being formulated following various public consultations and extensive lobbying. Regulation is unquestionably required in data protection, child protection and cyber security, as it is in health and safety.  Measures to preserve national security are also required, but excessive restrictions there can be a dubious pretext for over-reach with anti-competitive protectionism. Regulating competition in other ways is also questionable and should only be contemplated where there is clear evidence of market failure or harm to consumers. Reformers should also tread carefully to ensure that remedies don’t do more harm than good through unintended consequences.

Three proposed interventions to guide the invisible hand

In unregulated or lightly regulated markets, competition and growth can develop most dynamically among different players, technologies and business models. Nevertheless, significant interventions are being pursued in ICT where there have been many successes with enormous and widespread market growth and benefit to consumers. A firm’s market dominance, abnormally high growth and profits might or might not result from anticompetitive abuse. Making a determination on that — one way or the other — requires extensive investigations and ties up lots of limited public agency resources. We should be wary of those accused of such abuse when they seek to distract regulators from that contention by claiming it is those in other markets who are causing market failure or harm to competition.

Two major EU interventions have been conceived to reign-in the dominance of Big Tech companies over others with whom they compete or depend.  A third intervention—with the pretext of protecting Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) from abusive patent licensing—will perversely have the opposite effect.  It bolsters Big Tech and major industrial firms such as car manufacturers against the major value generators in the ICT ecosystem that create the standardized technologies that everyone benefits from using. 

Gatekeepers and other Core Platform Service competitors

America’s Big Tech companies—Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta and Microsoft—are deemed to be so big and powerful that they have been identified as “gatekeepers” by  the European Commission under its Digital Markets Act, as has China’s ByteDance. Gatekeeper designations reflect positions in search, browsers, operating systems and video sharing among other Core Platform Services.  The success of these companies is illustrated by those American companies’ combined market value increasing by a half to $9 trillion this year. Prospective regulation could limit the extent to which they own and how they offer and operate complementary services, such as in bundling. Similarly, in the US, Alphabet is being sued by the Department of Justice for abusing its dominant position in search to distort the market, for example, by making Google the default on most smartphones and browsers.

It remains to be seen whether regulating gatekeepers will foster more competition, innovation or economic value overall versus other Core Platform Service providers. Figuring out what kinds of structures and behaviors are anti-competitive is difficult in markets where prices are zero for consumers who pay in-kind by being targeted for advertising and who like the simplicity of bundled and integrated offerings.  What’s not to like about also getting free deliveries when one subscribes to Amazon Prime Video? A recent article in the Economist heralds Garmin in fitness trackers, Dropbox in cloud storage and Mercado-Libre in Latin American e-commerce  as examples of companies that have succeeded in growing revenues in competition with the Big Tech firms. Market failure and harm is difficult to prove because counterfactuals—in the but for world— cannot be observed.  Attempts to block acquisitions by Big Tech companies, manipulate their offerings or even break them up will surely be met with extensive and vigorous legal challenges.

Network cost sharing

Telco industry groups GSMA and European Telecommunications Network Operators’ Association (ETNO) have demanded that companies such as those above they depict as Large Traffic Generators (LTGs), and that are sometimes called Large Traffic Originators (LTOs), should pay their “fair share” of the costs to provide broadband Internet access. The sender-pays principle is based on a long-standing grievance of large telecom operators that Big Tech companies generate the majority of traffic and reap most of the benefits of the Internet economy while not chipping in with the costs.  The European Parliament concurred in a June 2023 resolution:

“that the economic sustainability of telecom networks is essential to achieving the 2030 Digital Compass connectivity targets and high-performance connectivity for all citizens within the EU without jeopardizing competition rules; urges the commission to address and mitigate persistent asymmetries in bargaining power as set out by the European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles for the Digital Decade; calls for the establishment of a policy framework where large traffic generators contribute fairly to the adequate funding of telecom networks without prejudice to net neutrality.”

Most network traffic is video and this proportion continues to increase. Alphabet’s YouTube, Amazon’s Prime Video and ByteDance’s TikTok among others are evidently major originators of network traffic. 

There is a clear need to keep increasing network capacity to accommodate data traffic growth. According Ericsson’s Mobility Reports, mobile network traffic has doubled every couple of years over the last decade or so. Fixed network traffic has also surged in multiples over recent years. A WIK-Consult study for the Commission found that €174-200 billion is needed to achieve Europe’s 2030 Connectivity Targets, including 5G coverage of all populated areas and gigabit-speed fiber.  As reported by Compass Lexecon, ETNO estimates previous investments of €36-40 billion per year, of which roughly half are traffic related and could have been saved absent the largest content providers’ traffic. According to HSBC, the average return on invested capital for major listed European telcos fell from around 8% in 2012 to around 5% in 2020, with many not achieving their cost of capital. 

There is disagreement about those investment figures. Opposing interests argue that the correct figures show there is no investment gap, and so subsidization by tech would result in excess profits for big telcos. However, the validity of the sub-par return on invested capital figure above does not appear to have been challenged. Big Tech companies have much higher rates of return.

A Compass Lexecon research paper concludes there is market failure. Its economic analysis shows that, where data usage is unlimited for a fixed price per month, there will be under-investment in access networks. Network operators do not have the incentive to maximize investment where incremental traffic generates no additional revenue. While LTOs invest in infrastructure such as content delivery networks, they have no incentive to increase their own costs by investing in access networks to the benefit their direct competitors. Perversely, Europe’s Open Internet Regulation (i.e. net neutrality requirements) only exacerbates this shortcoming because it prohibits allowing a traffic generator to make payments to prioritize or improve its services versus competitors’.  

Incremental capacity investments need to generate incremental revenues to provide a return on such investments. There is a very clear and direct causal relationship between the amount of traffic generated and the network capacity required to carry it. For example, 1 Gbps connections that can reliably carry 1 Tbytes per month will be required as video streaming almost entirely displaces multichannel terrestrial, satellite and cable distribution, eventually. The Big Tech firms can afford to contribute because they derive incremental revenues as the traffic they originate (e.g. as requested by customers) or generate themselves (e.g. advertising) increases.  If charges on them are even-handed versus their direct competitors they will all benefit, as will end users and the network operators. There is precedent elsewhere for cost sharing. In Korea, SKBroadband and SKTelecom have ended their dispute with Netflix and instead forged a partnership in which Netflix service is purchased in a subscription that presumably enables some of the network operator’s costs to be covered. 

Transparency and predictability in SEP licensing

While the Commission’s own studies have found no market failure in Standard-Essential Patent (SEP) licensing, proposed legislation requires licensors to register their patents and have some of them checked for essentiality. Proposals also include the setting of aggregate royalties, and mandatory but non-binding conciliation in the determination of Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) royalty rates.

Purported objectives for “improving the SEP licensing system” include providing transparency and predictability—for example, to SMEs with little or no expertise in licensing. However, licensors claim the associated costs and delays will weaken their positions and devalue their SEPs. 

Some MNOs lobbied to lower royalties as handset costs increased with the introduction of 3G and then 4G in the 2000s. Mobile phones were significantly morphing from mere voice and text devices to smartphones back then. Today’s Big Tech companies showed little interest in mobile SEP licensing until the introduction of the iPhone in 2007 and of Android in 2008.  Many Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) subsequently entered the smartphone market without ownership of SEPs.

Comments favoring the Commission’s proposals to regulate royalty rates and licensing are significantly by Apple, automotive manufacturers  and trade groups representing implementers and in some cases funded by the above. The current Spanish Presidency of the Council of the EU is also a fan. The proposed new ministry of patent counting that will also be responsible for setting royalty rates will be at the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in Alicante. Major SEP owners and licensors are largely against the proposals. Among the 78 responses to the Commission’s request for feedback on its proposed SEP legislation, the only response from a network operator was from Japan’s NTT DoCoMo, which is also an SEP owner. It also notes that “Regulation imposes excessive tasks and costs on SEP holders, even though it is unclear whether SEP holders will receive a fair and adequate return for their efforts.”  It seems Europe’s network operators are prioritizing their more pressing concerns about network costs, as indicated above, over getting involved too deeply in the public debate on SEP licensing.

Europe has enormous existing assets and potential in development and exploitation of new ICT including 5G Advanced, 6G, IoT and AI. For example, Ericsson and Nokia are global leaders in innovation and standards development for communications and video compression technologies. This needs to be nurtured not undermined. They have each invested around one billion dollars in R&D annually over many years. SEP licensing growth to support further innovation in standards should be fostered not attenuated by regulation. Licensing growth with bilateral and multilateral programs to increase licensing in verticals will encourage development of valuable standard-essential technologies that focus on those verticals. For example, SEP licensing in cars by Avanci has encouraged development of C-V2X technologies in 4G and 5G.  Licensing charges at a maximum of $20 for 4G and $32 for 5G per car are small in comparison to the existential threat posed to incumbent OEMs by them being marginalized in provision of value-added ICT services by Big Tech platforms or by being entirely displaced by new-entrant OEMs in Electric Vehicles (EVs), with alternative distribution and customer relationship models, such as Tesla and BYD. 

Harms, litigation and cures

It is abundantly clear that Big Tech platforms are commanding the lion’s share of any economic surplus in consumer ICT markets. Network operators, standard-essential technology developers and many implementers are much less profitable or rated far more modestly for expected growth. 

While I doubt examples of growth by Garmin, Dropbox and Mercardo-Libre will be sufficient to placate the European authorities, market failure and harm to other Core Platform Services providers will be difficult to prove. Vigorous legal challenges to any proposed interventions are inevitable.

Elsewhere, intervention is warranted in dysfunctional markets where some companies are flourishing while others upon whom they depend are unable to make the investment and returns required to provide what consumers want and need. Society will benefit socially and economically  from ubiquitous fixed and mobile gigabit per second and gigabyte per month broadband. 

However, the EU’s proposed regulation in SEPs will diminish SEP licensing costs to the detriment of the licensors who invest in developing the standard-essential technologies that are openly employed by numerous others. No good will come from biting off the hands that feed the entire ecosystem with new and useful standard-based technologies. There is no sign of harm from the SEP licensing business model. On the contrary, this has substantially enabled the very success that America’s Big Tech companies and the predominantly Asian smartphone OEMs have enjoyed from cellular and video standards with an increasingly mobile-first approach in the provision of many ICT services. In most cases these companies contribute little to the cellular and video technology standards development processes. In technology standards development it is a relatively small number of companies that own and license the vast majority of patents declared standard essential, in comparison to the many more firms that implement them.

This article was originally published by RCR Wireless on 27th September 2023.