Avvika

Aktiebolag
Patent Engineering
IPR Business Development
Patent Licensing

Org. N°
556716-6599

VAT N°
SE 556716659901

Säte / Site
Stockholm

Verkställande Direktör Component Level Licensing

Eric Stasik, MSEE

E-mail Nov. 12, 2019

eric.stasik@avvika.com

Telephone
+46 70 818 58 63
Presented by: Eric Stasik, MSEE
Visiting Address Director, Avvika AB
Hagagatan 48 BV
113 47 Stockholm
Stockholm, Sweden
Sweden

Post Address
Postbox 24203
104 53 Stockholm
Sweden

world wide web

www.avvika.com
 Avvika What SEPs?
Aktiebolag

”… the court agrees that as a matter of law, the TIA and ATIS IPR Policies
both require Qualcomm to license its SEPs to modem chip suppliers.”

(Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK Order Granting FTC’s Motion for Partial

Summary Judgement, Nov. 6, 2018)

What SEPs exactly?

* Only SEPs which are fully carried out within a modem chipset?

* SEPs which are partially carried out within a modem chipset?

* All SEPs regardless of where implemented?

Given that there are no 3GPP standards for chipset modems, how would
one go about deciding what sections of what standards are practiced by
modem chipsets?
Avvika 3G/4G Network Architecture
Aktiebolag
Avvika Physical aspects are modelled using a domain concept
Aktiebolag

User Equipment is a device allowing a user access to network services.

The User Equipment is both:

1) a separate physical device

Confidential – Discussion document for meeting with Roman Sedlmaier 18 Sep 2018
Avvika Logical aspects are modelled using the strata concept
Aktiebolag

The UE is also:

2) an extension of the core network as a platform for the provisioning of network services.

Confidential – Discussion document for meeting with Roman Sedlmaier 18 Sep 2018
Avvika SEPs are exhausted towards network operators
Aktiebolag

Licenses granted for Licenses granted for

SEPs covering mobile SEPs covering
equipment infrastructure License

Confidential – Discussion document for meeting with Roman Sedlmaier 18 Sep 2018
 Avvika Who should license what SEP?
Aktiebolag

Given that there are no 3GPP standards for chipset modems, how would
one go about deciding what sections of what standards are practiced by
modem chipsets?

Chipset manufacturers will say it is the UE which should be licensed;

UE Manufacturers will say it is the Chipset which should be licensed.

This will lead to licensing and Indemnity disputes.

Chipsets would need to be licensed for different fields of use (use in different
UEs). Different pricing structures at the chipset level depending on field of
use.

Tracking compliance will be very difficult. Who is to blame if the field of use
is different? Enforcement becomes much more complicated.
Avvika For 3GPP Standards, licensing Modem Chipsets just
Aktiebolag creates another tier of licensing

Licenses
granted for
SEPs covering
modem chipsets

Licenses granted for Licenses granted for

SEPs covering mobile SEPs covering
equipment infrastructure License

Confidential – Discussion document for meeting with Roman Sedlmaier 18 Sep 2018
 Avvika Just Qualcomm or All ATIS/TIA members?
Aktiebolag

”… the court agrees that as a matter of law, the TIA and ATIS IPR Policies
both require Qualcomm to license its SEPs to modem chip suppliers.”

(Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK Order Granting FTC’s Motion for Partial

Summary Judgement, Nov. 6, 2018)

Just Qualcomm or all ATIS members?

What about the other OPs? ETSI Members Ericsson, NSN, and Philips, and
others will presumably continue their policy of licensing end-user devices.
This would create a discriminatory situation where similarly situated SEP
holders did not have similar licensing obligations.
Avvika What about the other OPs and other IPR Policies?
Aktiebolag
Avvika What about the other OPs and other IPR Policies?
Aktiebolag

3GPP has operated under the assumption that the IPR policies
of the 7 OPs were largely the same.

This may no longer be the case. What if ”RAND” is not legally

equivalent to ”FRAND”?

If ATIS members are subject to different licensing obligations

than ETSI members, this would create regionally discriminatory
licensing terms and conditions which would be untenable.