Identifier | Created | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|
05TAIPEI1217 | 2005-03-22 07:35:00 | UNCLASSIFIED | American Institute Taiwan, Taipei |
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available. |
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 TAIPEI 001217 |
1. Summary: Representatives from the US Department of Justice and Fair Trade Commission and representatives from the Taiwan Fair Trade Commission held a Digital Video Conference (DVC) March 16. This was the first meeting under the auspices of the U.S./Taiwan Anti-trust Working Group. The TFTC presented a short discussion of patent pooling in Taiwan and then outlined their decision making process in a recent case. USDOJ and FTC introduced the U.S. business review and advisory opinion process then discussed U.S. procedures in a U.S. patent pooling case. In addition to the first meeting of the Anti-trust Working Group, this was TFTC's first DVC. TFTC representatives were very pleased with the discussion, wished the DVC could have been extended and are eagerly anticipating the next working group meeting. End Summary. 2. The first meeting of the US/Taiwan Anti-trust working group was via DVC on the morning of March 16 Taipei time. USDOJ Stuart Chemtob led the U.S. delegation, accompanied by USDOJ Special Counsel for Intellectual Property Frances Marshall, Attorneys Hill Wellford and Jennifer Dixton, and Economist Suzanne Majewski, FTC Associate Director Alden Abbott and Asia-Pacific Counsel Deirdre Shanahan. US Deputy Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim also attended briefly. The Taiwan FTC delegation was headed by Deputy Chairman Shin Chih-jeng, accompanied by several members of his staff. Discussing Patent Pooling Guidelines ==================================== 3. Introductions were followed by a TFTC presentation on patent pooling regulations in Taiwan. Patent pools are created by rightsholders as a means of simplifying licensing procedures for manufacturers who would like to use the patented technology. Relevant patents are included in a "pool", the licensee then pays a royalty fee to license all patents in the pool, rather than negotiating separate agreements for each patent. TFTC's staff, Ms. Chen Ying-ju discussed the TFTC's methodology for determining whether patent pools were anti-competitive. Taiwan has published guidelines based on international and domestic case law to determine how to handle patent pooling cases. These guidelines include eleven examples of permissible patent pools and direct investigators to consider reasonableness of the pool, the market power of the licensor, the relative market position of the parties, whether the patents are substitutable or complimentary, and whether the arrangement will discourage innovation. 4. The TFTC then introduced its first patent pool case, decided in 2004. Philips, Sony, and Taiyo Yuden created a patent pool for CD-Recordable (CD-R) production. Taiwan has a large CD-R manufacturing industry that licenses technology from the patent pool administered by Philips. In 1999, the Taiwan CD-R industry brought a case to the TFTC alleging that Philips had set the royalty rate too high, refused to negotiate a lower rate, and required licensees to provide confidential and irrelevant business data as a requirement of SIPDIS licensing. After a lengthy investigation, the TFTC found in 2004 that Philips was in violation of Taiwan's anti-trust law and authorized compulsory licensing of CD-R patents. The TFTC based its decision on several factors, including Philips' unwillingness to adjust the royalty fee, the inability of licensees to choose substitutes, and an improper agreement between the patent-holders to set prices, share royalties and not compete. The TFTC also found that some of the patents in the pool were irrelevant or substitutable, not complementary patents. 5. USDOJ officials, questions focused on how the TFTC determined that the patent pool was anti-competitive, including a discussion of the differences between US and Taiwan procedures for gauging anti-competitive behavior. Rather than looking at price or lack of competition, the USDOJ directs its attention to whether patents included in the pool are substitutable or complementary. Pooling complementary patents can encourage greater competition and lower prices for consumers by eliminating inefficiencies and lowering transaction costs. The USDOJ does not believe that inclusion of substitutable patents in a pool automatically makes it anti-competitive, but such pools invite closer scrutiny to determine whether innovation is suppressed. The TFTC representatives agreed that further discussions of how to define complementality and substitutability would be useful. The USDOJ was interested to see TFTC's evidence pertaining to the royalty sharing agreement, noting that the US has not investigated this type of case and could benefit from Taiwan's experience. USDOJ Offers Experience in Business Reviews =========================================== 6. The USDOJ/USFTC presentation discussed their business review and advisory opinion processes. Companies can apply to the DOJ in advance of any action to ask for a review of their proposed conduct. DOJ will then analyze the proposal and recommend changes if needed, to ensure the planned course of action does not violate the law. DOJ noted that even if the company does not follow DOJ recommendations, there is still no presumption of anti-competitive behavior. The FTC advisory opinion is similar in that it applies only to prospective actions. There are two types of advisory opinions. Commission-issued opinions are agreed upon by the whole commission and are legally binding. Staff-issued opinions are not legally binding, however, there has never been a case where a staff opinion was overruled. 7. The FTC then introduced its experience in a patent pool case. In the Visix-Summit case, two competing laser surgical equipment manufacturers pooled their patents and set a fixed price for all licensees. Visix and Summit argued that their patents were complementary, but the FTC found they were substitutable and the pool artificially increased prices and restricted innovation. In this case, the FTC employed independent experts to help determine whether the patents in the pool were technically essential and whether there were feasible alternatives. In response to TFTC questions about whether the high fixed royalty rate influenced the decision, the FTC argued that the royalty rate should not be a determining factor, rather it is the availability of substitutes that should control the decision. The FTC noted that setting standards and royalty fees often seek a "reasonable and non-discriminatory" standard, but it is impossible to project what will be considered reasonable as technology develops and matures. Positive Reactions, Looking for Future Meetings ============================================= == 8. In a brief closing, both the USDOJ and TFTC expressed their satisfaction with the exchange of views and professed a clearer understanding of the factors considered by their counterparts in determining what comprises anti-competitive practice. During the post-meeting wrap-up, TFTC officials told AIT/T that they very pleased with the discussion, would have liked the opportunity to extend the discussion beyond the two hour time frame and hope next time to include more TFTC staff. Attendees noted that the Philips case was controversial, even within the TFTC, and were appreciative of the opportunity to hear the views of US experts about key aspects of the case. The TFTC officials hoped the next meeting of the working group could be scheduled as soon as possible, and suggested further discussions about patent pooling might be useful. PAAL |