(General Studies II – Governance section – Statutory, Regulatory and various Quasi-judicial Bodies. Government Policies and Interventions for Development in various sectors and Issues arising out of their Design and Implementation.)
- A potential crisis looms in India’s telecom sector, as certain technology companies leverage Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) in ways that challenge the growth of India’s domestic cellular phone manufacturing industry.
- This complex policy issue has significant implications for national manufacturing ambitions.
Significance of Standard Essential Patents (SEP) –
- These are patents that cover technologies that are adopted by the industry as “standards”. For example, technologies such as CDMA, GSM and LTE are all industry standards in the telecom sector.
- It ensures the interoperability of different brands of cellular phones manufactured by different companies. For example, once GSM was adopted as a standard, all manufacturers had to ensure that the handsets that they manufactured were compatible with GSM. Otherwise, there would be no demand for their phones.
Issues involved in SEP standard setting –
- Controlled by Standard-Setting Organizations (SSOs): The process of setting standards in the technology sector is largely privatised and dominated by “Standard-setting organisations” (SSOs) run largely by private technology companies.
- Limited National Influence: Countries like India, with minimal innovation input, have little control over these standards.
- Patent Holdup: SEP owners can demand high royalties, stifling competition and innovation due to the lack of alternative technologies.
- Failures of FRAND: The SSO’s promise of fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory licensing often falls short, leading to global disputes and massive fines for companies like Qualcomm.
Judicial and Regulatory Policy Challenges in India –
- Competition Commission of India (CCI) vs. Ericsson: In 2013, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) began investigating Ericsson for allegedly abusing its dominant position by demanding excessive royalties for its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), following a complaint from Micromax. Ericsson contested the CCI’s authority, claiming that jurisdiction over patent abuses belonged solely to the Patent Office. Although a judge initially ruled in favour of the CCI, Ericsson appealed the decision. The case was delayed for several years at the Delhi High Court before a judgment against the CCI led to a further appeal to the Supreme Court of India, where it remains unresolved.
- Judicial Activism and Delays: The Delhi High Court’s interim orders demanding deposits from manufacturers to continue manufacturing have controversially tied up capital for years, impacting the sector’s growth and investment appeal. E.g. Ericsson vs Lava International case took 8 years to resolve.
- Lack of Effective Oversight: Ideally the infringement lawsuits should have been stayed until the competition law issues were resolved. The ordinary course of such litigation in most countries is for the courts to conduct a trial on the validity of the patents, whether there has been infringement and, if so, the damages payable.
- The Production Linked Incentives scheme for manufacturing in India is putting money in the pockets of manufacturers while ignoring the amount of money that is being removed from the same pockets by the owners of SEPs. More pertinently, unlike manufacturers who are investing in India to create jobs, the owners of SEPs are only taking their money out of the country.
Way Forward –
- The European Parliament’s steps to regulate SEPs provide a model that India could consider to protect its manufacturing sector and ensure fair competition.
- Need for the Indian government’s support to the telecom sector.
- India should align its SEP policies with international best practices to foster a healthy, competitive market conducive to domestic and foreign investment.