Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
07CANBERRA1721
2007-12-05 05:26:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Canberra
Cable title:  

CSIRO'S PERSPECTIVE ON WIRELESS PATENT LEGAL

Tags:  ECON KIPR AS 
pdf how-to read a cable
P 050526Z DEC 07
FM AMEMBASSY CANBERRA
TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 8671
INFO AMCONSUL MELBOURNE 
AMCONSUL PERTH 
AMCONSUL SYDNEY
C O N F I D E N T I A L CANBERRA 001721 

SIPDIS


SIPDIS

STATE PASS USTR/BELL; STATE FOR EAP/ANP, EEB

E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/14/2017
TAGS: ECON KIPR AS
SUBJECT: CSIRO'S PERSPECTIVE ON WIRELESS PATENT LEGAL
STRUGGLE


Classified By: ECON COUNSELOR E KAGAN, REASONS 1.4 B AND D

C O N F I D E N T I A L CANBERRA 001721

SIPDIS


SIPDIS

STATE PASS USTR/BELL; STATE FOR EAP/ANP, EEB

E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/14/2017
TAGS: ECON KIPR AS
SUBJECT: CSIRO'S PERSPECTIVE ON WIRELESS PATENT LEGAL
STRUGGLE


Classified By: ECON COUNSELOR E KAGAN, REASONS 1.4 B AND D


1. (C) Summary: The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation's (CSIRO) ongoing defense in U.S.
courts of its wireless patent against alleged infringers is
unusual but not unprecedented. CSIRO is open to negotiating
a settlement of its case. The $4/unit royalty that CSIRO has
proposed is an opening figure that CSIRO does not expect to
get in the end. CSIRO holds hundreds of royalty-bearing
patents dating back to 1954. Although a part of the
government, which provides most of its funding, CSIRO is
officially independent of any Australian ministry and rarely
receives direct orders. End summary.


2. (SBU) The proceedings in U.S. courts involving the defense
of a patent related to 802.11 wireless local area network
technology by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation (CSIRO) has attracted some media
coverage in Australia. On December 4, econoff met with Nigel
Poole, Executive Director for Business Services at CSIRO, and
Jack Steele, Chief of Staff, Business Services to get CSIRO's
background and perspective on this case.

BACKGROUND ON CSIRO AND PATENTS
--------------


3. (U) CSIRO is an independent scientific research entity,
government-owned and commissioned but not part of any other
Australian governmental body. About 60% of its annual A$1.1
billion (US$960 million) budget comes from the GOA; the other
40% is derived from fees for conducting studies (usually on
the GOA's behest),royalties from licenses for CSIRO patents,
and other sources. As Poole explained, CSIRO has a mandate
to "deliver outcomes" - applied research with an eye to the
market. CSIRO's work tends to have commercial applications
or to meet community concern (e.g., its studies of
environmental issues, fisheries, etc).


4. (U) CSIRO is not new to the licensing technology game -
its first license was in 1954 for an atomic instrumentation
device it developed and patented, at a 5% gross royalty.
CSIRO files about 100 patent applications a year, making it
the biggest public-sector patent generator in Australia, and

currently has about 700 royalty-bearing licenses. Poole said
CSIRO commercializes its patents for two reasons - to ensure
that technology it develops is adopted, and to generate
income as a way to show stakeholders that CSIRO is achieving
returns on the Australian taxpayers' investment.

5. (SBU) Once a decade or so CSIRO patents a "blockbuster."
One example is the polymer banknote, used in Australia,
Rumania, and other countries, invented in the 1970s and still
licensed and used today. A procedure for smelting copper is
used in 37 global copper companies, smelting 7.5 million tons
of copper worth billions every year. CSIRO royalties bring
in per annum anywhere from tens of thousands of dollars to
multi-million dollars each. Five or six are multimillion
dollar earners (per year). Often licensees of various
products cooperated with CSIRO during development. The
transfer of technology from CSIRO is usually voluntary, and
typically a company negotiates a commercial deal before
commercializing the product. The current WLAN case is
unusual, according to our CSIRO contacts.

CSIRO,S HISTORY OF WIRELESS PATENTS ISSUE
--------------


6. (SBU) From a CSIRO briefing document: "CSIRO in the early
1990s developed a system to exchange large amounts of
information wirelessly at high speeds within environments
Qinformation wirelessly at high speeds within environments
such as offices and homes (a Wireless Local Area Network or
WLAN)." CSIRO was granted a U.S. patent for this invention
in 1996, and also holds patents for it in Japan and Europe.
The patent is needed for certain 802.11 WLAN standards, and
per CSIRO, almost all notebook computers and other consumer
devices comply with these standards.


7. (SBU) CSIRO tried to license this product. In 2003 and
2004, it became aware of products that it believed infringed
on its patent, and sent letters to 28 companies asking them
to please discuss terms for a license from CSIRO. The
companies did not accept CSIRO's offer.


8. (C) Poole explained that CSIRO then began to discuss a
possible test case. Although not legally obliged to, they
consulted widely with the Australian cabinet, including the
Minister for Science, the Attorney General, the Minister
for Communications and Information Technology, and also with
the appropriate counterparts in the then-opposition Australian
Labor Party. At that time, CSIRO also rejected the option of
filing the case under the "Government of Australia" name,
deciding that would be too provocative, and filed the suit as
CSIRO.


9. (C) Note: CSIRO had also considered filing a case with the
International Trade Commission which if successful could have
stopped the importation of devices with disputed technology,
but Poole said they decided that was too drastic a step. End
Note.


10. (C) Poole said that Buffalo, a Japanese-owned company,
essentially "picked itself" for the test case because in
their response to CSIRO they said they would never apply for
a license and accused CSIRO of being "swindlers." Poole said
CSIRO was convinced of the merits of their case, and so chose
the Eastern District of Texas because it has the reputation
of being the fastest jurisdiction (he said companies
frequently try to string out such cases). The case was filed
in February 2005, and shortly after five U.S. companies filed
separate legal action against CSIRO in May to prevent it from
seeking reasonable royalties. The action by the five
companies was dismissed, and an attempt to move the case from
Texas also failed.


11. (SBU) In November 2006, the presiding Judge found that
Buffalo had infringed on CSIRO's patent, describing the
situation (according to our CSIRO contacts) as an "open and
shut case." In February 2007, CSIRO was granted an
injunction against Buffalo, and Buffalo's attempt at a stay
was dismissed by the Court of Appeals, which (per CSIRO)
found "no merit" in Buffalo's case.


12. (C) Meanwhile CSIRO has filed suit against a total of 14
companies for infringing its patent. There has been a case
management conference, where per CSIRO the judge advised the
defendants to mediate because the patent is valid, and it is
now just a question of royalties and damages. CSIRO and the
defendants participated in a court-ordered mediation session
in mid-November in San Francisco, which was unsuccessful; one
company offered a $10 million settlement, which Poole says is
less than cost of CSIRO's legal fees.

A LOT AT STAKE FOR CSIRO
--------------


13. (SBU) Poole and Steel said such cases in American courts
are unusual for CSIRO but not unknown. For example, CSIRO is
with CIBA Vision (a U.S. firm) defending a patent related to
an oxygen-permeable contact lens CSIRO and CIBA
developed. Before launching the WLAN case, they hired
American patent valuation specialists to determine what would
be a reasonable royalty. They were told that roughly 5% or
$4/unit was reasonable based on wireless patents, the utility
of the invention, etc.


14. (C) CSIRO says that the 14 defendants have sold 200
million devices with 802.11 technology that relies on their
patented technology, and that over the remaining life of the
patent will sell another 600 million. They also note
that Cisco recognized the value of this technology and in
1999 bought a CSIRO-established company that was established
to exploit this technology for A$300 million. Per Poole, the
14 companies are "paranoid" that Cisco is working with CSIRO
on this case, but they aren't involved.


15. (C) Poole said CSIRO will not just roll over and give up
on this - and he says they can't afford to. They need to
demonstrate to potential licensees and partners that CSIRO
will be strong in defending patents as a way to maintain the
value of all patents that CSIRO holds and licenses. They
Qvalue of all patents that CSIRO holds and licenses. They
said they do not ultimately expect to get $4 per unit - that
is the starting point in a negotiation, and CSIRO wants to
negotiate and settle. Poole mused that perhaps some of the
companies would want to settle before the Buffalo case goes
to the Court of Appeal in May 2008.

OTHER FACTORS
--------------


16. (U) CSIRO is independent under a 1949 law, as amended in

2007. Because it is a government entity, the Minister for
Science could order CSIRO to do something, but such instances
are relatively rare. The last "ministerial
direction" to CSIRO (i.e., a direct order) was in 2001.


17. (U) Steele noted that the difference in the size of the
U.S. and Australian markets demands a different approach to
licensing inventions derived from federal-government backed
research entities. Most of the benefits of a
CSIRO-sponsored invention will actually accrue in the United
States (population 300 million) and elsewhere rather than in
Australia (20 million),so licensing patents rather than
making them freely available is a way of capturing
some of the benefits back for the Australian taxpayer.

MCCALLUM