Friday, 19 September 2014
masthead+quote+image
Advanced search

4G auction could trigger patent disputes

There will be tense times ahead for the 4G auction winners, announced February 20 2013, as they prepare to roll out their 4G hardware and costly patent disputes should not be ruled out, according to patent experts at Withers & Rogers.

The telecoms regulator, Ofcom has raised £2.3bn from the 4G auction and the winning bidders have been announced. They are EE, Hutchison 3G UK (the owners of the ‘3’ brand), Niche Spectrum Ventures (a BT subsidiary), Telefonica (O2’s parent company) and Vodafone.

For the successful bidders, there will be more tense times ahead as they begin to roll out the required hardware and prepare to launch 4G services, which could potentially lead to disputes over the use of patented technologies, causing costly disruption.

For example, following the 3G auction, the maker of Blackberry handsets, Research in Motion (RIM), settled a worldwide patent dispute with Visto, paying $267m as a one-off payment. This allowed RIM to continue using their preferred push email technology and ensured their systems remained attractive to the business user.

One would anticipate that the mobile network operators have learnt lessons from the RIM/Visto debacle, and that they have undertaken patent infringement clearance checks so that they will not be on the wrong end of a patent lawsuit. 

This should make such disputes less likely, but they are still possible. Operators will be hoping that all the checks they carried out in the run up to the auction to ensure that they are free to use the relevant standard essential and non-essential patented technologies are accurate. They will also be hoping that licence agreements have been obtained by their suppliers where appropriate.

When it comes to 4G take-up, the main issues for consumers, other than price, will be network coverage, reliability of service and download speeds.

EE launched their 4G service at the end of last year, but that service has attracted criticism and fallen short of expectations. The winning bidders will be hoping that their 4G services are now ready to deliver to a high standard.

Among the winning bidders, we can see that some have been investing in R&D more heavily than others – for example, EE’s parent companies (Deutsche Telekom and France Télécom) and BT are known to have always had a strong focus on R&D and have respectively filed over 4,000 and 2,400 European patent applications over the years, compared to Hutchison 3G’s group companies who have only filed 23 European patent applications.

In the middle, we have Telefonica’s German and Spanish subsidiaries who have filed around 150 European patent applications.  Such data may provide some indication of an individual player’s degree of readiness to deliver a reliable 4G service across the network.


Readers' comments (3)

  • Again the spectra of patents potential holding back progress!

    Maybe it's time to revamp the patent system so that it recognises the fast pace of change and the fact very few patents are truly unique.
    i.e. we need a lot higher bar before a patent is granted and a lot shorter period.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • As long as there are patent agents who are lawyers with wallets to fill, this nonsense will continue. As soon as technical advances are the province of the appropriate professional body, and that alone, it will stop. Unfortunately as so many within the administration parliaments /assemblies (call them what you will) of all states are lawyers -who clearly owe their first duty to others within their so-called profession -they are unlikely to voluntarily propose any alteration to the present cash-cow that patents and subsequent litigation offer.

    Other Engineers may recall my previous posts on this topic. I recall a case involving several fibre-producers squabbling about the patents and use of aramid (ultra-high strength) filaments/yarns. There were only three people in Court who actually knew what they were talking about -the two expert witnesses one from either side (both known to me) and myself: who had worked on the design of the machinery to process the material from one source, even before it had a name!
    The Judge showed his attention and knowledge by asking at a critical point "What is yarn?"

    The advance and ascent of mankind with not continue until the shams have been removed from the equation:
    sadly until then most innovative ideas are of more use to those who profit and benefit from disputes, not to mankind as a whole.
    Best to all Engineers
    Mike B

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Brian/Mike, if you truly believe that companies would still invest in R&D to the level they do now if the patent system did not exist, then think again.

    Why would a company risk a third party simply copying their technology as soon as a product comes to market? It is just not possible to keep all technology a trade-secret.

    In the high-tech world, big companies would live on, trading on their name and just outspending their smaller competitors, but the little guys would surely lose out without the protection/revenue patents provide.

    In the pharma world, drug development would slow dramatically, if not stop completely, as it costs billions to develop successful products, which can only be recouped by trading under the monopoly patents provide - we do not see the thousands of failures that exist behind the scenes.

    If you care to outline how you think the relevant professional bodies would handle the situation, I would be very interested to read it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory

My saved stories (Empty)

You have no saved stories

Save this article