X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Many tech-world rivals of Google Inc. were not pleased that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission ended a 19-month investigation of the technology giant by concluding it had not violated antitrust laws with the way it operated its Internet search engine. But Google did not walk away completely absolved of guilt, and the consent order it signed to make further investigation and potential penalties disappear could leave an important mark in the patent world. Some patent experts and legal scholars viewed the agreement as a positive step, saying it answered questions and clarified issues about standard essential patents that had been confusing and unclear. “I think the agreement is really productive and will help reduce the confusion and uncertainty that currently surrounds how SEPs can be used,” Colleen Chien, an intellectual property professor at Santa Clara University Law School and an expert on the ITC, said in an email. The wording of the agreement only applies to Google and its affiliates—but it presents a clear way forward that courts and companies can use to guide how they resolve similar lawsuits, Chien said. The FTC found that Google had reneged on its commitments to allow competitors access to standard essential patents (SEPs) needed to make smartphones, laptops, tablets, and gaming consoles on “fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory” (FRAND) terms. The FTC ordered Google to stop seeking to exclude competitors from using the essential patents it had acquired when it paid $12.4 billion to purchase Motorola Mobility last year. Companies such as Apple Inc. and Microsoft Corporation had complained that Google was using the patents to thwart competition from mobile devices that do not use Google’s Android software. “This type of patent hold-up can lead to higher prices, as companies may pay higher royalties for the use of Google’s patents because of the threat of an injunction, and then pass those higher prices on to consumers. This may cause companies in technology industries to abandon the standard-setting process and limit or forgo investment in new technologies,” the FTC said. “To remedy this concern, Google has agreed to a Consent Order that prohibits it from seeking injunctions against a willing licensee, either in federal court or at the [International Trade Commission], to block the use of any standard-essential patents that the company has previously committed to license on FRAND terms.” Prior to the FTC announcement, courts had been grappling with questions about the licensing of SEPs in a piecemeal fashion. There was little agreement on when a company was bound by a court-adjudicated FRAND license, for example, or when an SEP could be the basis for an injunction. But now there is more clarity, Chien said, noting that the FTC, with its national jurisdiction, has more power than any one judge. “Companies want certainty, even if it cuts against their interests,” she said. “The settlement provides that.” The settlement provides certainty vis-à-vis Google and Apple, Chien said, and may also set broader norms for smartphone patent holders. But does this mean we’ll be closer to smartphone world peace? “I’m not holding my breath on that,” Chien said. Critics of the settlement complained it left loopholes that could work in Google’s favor. “During patent licensing negotiations, Google can continue to threaten that it will sue for an injunction, knowing that many would-be licensees will not be in a position to engage in litigation or arbitration with Google, and also meet all of the other procedural requirements set forth in the decree that are imposed on the licensee,” Microsoft vice president and deputy general counsel Dave Heiner wrote in a blog post after the announcement. He went on to say: “Google can even continue to use its standard essential patents to fend off patent infringement actions against it: the proposed decree gives Google leeway to sue for an injunction on its standard essential patents if it takes the position that injunctive relief sought against it is based on a patent that is standard essential. Since it is often hard to tell which patents are standard essential, the risk of injunction lawsuits from Google may dissuade firms from seeking to enforce their non-standard essential patents against the company.” But in issuing the consent agreement, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz emphasized the impact the commission hoped the settlement would have. “Google’s unfair conduct threatened to block consumers access to critical electronic devices,” he said. “Today’s landmark enforcement effort will become what we hope will be a template for resolution of [SEP] licensing disputes across many industries.” If Google breaks any part of the agreement, the FTC can fine the company up to $16,000 per violation. The agency does, in fact, act on the threat. Last year, the FTC found that Google broke an agreement governing Internet privacy and fined the company $22.5 million. In further concessions contained in the new agreement, Google also said it would stop “scraping” its rivals’ content, such as restaurant or product reviews, for use in its own specialized search results. It also agreed to drop contractual restrictions that made it difficult for small businesses to manage their online campaigns across competing advertising platforms. But Microsoft and other companies that had alleged Google was violating antitrust and anticompetition laws were angered by the FTC’s decision not to take legal action with respect to Google’s search engine practices. The consumer review site Yelp, a vocal critic of Google’s scraping activities, said the FTC’s failure to take stronger action against Google was “a missed opportunity to protect innovation in the Internet economy, and the consumers and business that rely upon it.” American Consumer Institute president Steve Pociask accused the FTC of failing to use its authority “for the betterment of the marketplace.” And Consumer Watchdog, a consumer advocacy organization that has frequently criticized Google, called for the Department of Justice and state attorneys general to “press forward to end the Internet giant’s monopolistic behavior in search results.” Google’s fight is not yet over, however. It still has to face regulators in Europe, where it has been accused of anticompetitive practices similar to those investigated by the FTC. After the FTC announcement, Microsoft’s Heiner said the company would now be looking to Europe for more agreeable action. And it’s not clear that the FTC decision will have an impact there, as Google’s search engine is even more dominant in Europe than it is in the U.S. “We have taken note of the FTC decision,” European Commission spokesman Michael Jennings told Reuters. “But we don’t see that it has any direct implications for our investigation, for our discussions with Google, which are ongoing.”

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2017 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.