Comment on the Japan Fair Trade Commission's Draft Partial Amendment to the Guidelines for the Use of Intellectual Property Under the Antimonopoly Act

9 Pages Posted: 5 Sep 2015

See all articles by Joshua D. Wright

Joshua D. Wright

George Mason University - Antonin Scalia Law School, Faculty

Douglas H. Ginsburg

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; George Mason University - Antonin Scalia Law School, Faculty

Date Written: September 3, 2015

Abstract

This comment is submitted in response to the Japan Fair Trade Commission’s (JFTC’s) request for public comments on the Draft Partial Amendment to the Guidelines for the Use of Intellectual Property under the Antimonopoly Act (Draft Amendment). The Draft Amendment specifies that seeking injunctive relief to enforce a standard essential patent (SEP) encumbered by a commitment to license on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms against a party that is willing to take a license on FRAND terms “may” constitute an unlawful exclusion of business activities in violation of Article 3 of Japan’s Antimonopoly Act (AMA) (Draft Amendment Part 3(1)(e)) or an unfair trade practice in violation of Article 19 of the AMA (Draft Amendment Part 4(2)(iv)).

The Draft Amendment is premised upon the assumption that seeking injunctive relief “generally makes it difficult to research & develop ... products adopting the standards,” which in turn deters widespread adoption of standards. This assumption lacks empirical support. Further, as we explain, ordinary contract law makes an AMA sanction unnecessary to deter any instances of anticompetitive patent holdup that might arise; indeed, an AMA sanction is likely to reduce incentives to innovate and deter participation in standard setting, thereby depriving consumers of the substantial procompetitive benefits of standardized technologies. For these reasons, we respectfully recommend that Parts 3(1)(e) and 4(2)(iv) be deleted in their entirety. Should the JFTC decide to retain these provisions, however, they should at the very least be amended to limit liability to situations when there is proof that a FRAND-encumbered SEP holder has engaged in patent “holdup,” i.e., that the patent holder used the threat of injunctive relief to demand supra-competitive royalties.

Keywords: antitrust law, Draft Partial Amendment to the Guidelines for the Use of Intellectual Property under the Antimonopoly Act, FRAND terms, injunctive relief, innovation, Japan Fair Trade Commission, JFTC, patent holdup, standard essential patent, SEP, standardization

JEL Classification: K11, K12, K21

Suggested Citation

Wright, Joshua D. and Ginsburg, Douglas H., Comment on the Japan Fair Trade Commission's Draft Partial Amendment to the Guidelines for the Use of Intellectual Property Under the Antimonopoly Act (September 3, 2015). George Mason Legal Studies Research Paper No. LS 15-13; George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 15-30. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2655685 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2655685

Joshua D. Wright (Contact Author)

George Mason University - Antonin Scalia Law School, Faculty ( email )

3301 Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22201
United States

Douglas H. Ginsburg

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ( email )

333 Constitution Ave NW
Room 5523
Washington, DC 20001
United States

George Mason University - Antonin Scalia Law School, Faculty ( email )

3301 Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22201
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
73
Abstract Views
1,118
rank
317,742
PlumX Metrics