The vibrant world of intellectual property (IP) thrives on collaboration. Licensing agreements act as gateways, allowing companies to unlock the value of their creations—patented technologies, copyrighted works, or trademarks—by granting permission to others to use them. A key element of these agreements is the royalty payment, a crucial revenue stream for IP holders. However, determining a fair and reasonable royalty rate in India can be a complex process, akin to navigating a labyrinth. Further complicating the journey is the potential conflict between the Competition Act and IP laws.

This article explores the concept of licensing royalties and the importance of defining the "relevant market" for accurate calculations. It highlights the challenges associated with market definition and emphasizes the need for careful planning before entering into licensing agreements, with a specific focus on the Indian legal landscape. We will also delve into the recent landmark decision by the Delhi High Court (DHC) in the dispute between Ericsson and Lava, a case that sheds light on India's growing importance in Standard Essential Patent (SEP) litigation.

The Importance of Royalties

For companies holding valuable intellectual property, licensing agreements offer a strategic way to capitalize on their assets. Royalties, typically calculated as a percentage of the licensee's sales or a fixed fee per unit produced, provide a steady income stream. However, the royalty rate itself significantly impacts both parties involved.

The Competition Act vs. IP Laws: Walking a Tightrope

While a higher royalty translates to greater revenue for the licensor (IP holder), the Competition Act of 2003 complicates matters. This act prohibits anti-competitive agreements, including those that could unduly restrict market access or impose excessive pricing. An excessively high royalty rate can deter potential licensees, limiting market penetration and potentially violating the Competition Act.

The "Relevant Market": A Crucial Compass

A central concept in determining fair royalty rates, and navigating the Competition Act considerations, is the definition of the relevant market. This refers to the specific product or service category in which the licensed technology or creation competes. Defining the relevant market helps establish a benchmark for assessing the value of the licensed technology. The process to ascertain the relevant market for a patent is complex and fraught with challenges, being a maze full of alluring turns and alleyways that ultimately lead to dead-ends. However, accurately defining relevant markets is crucial to avoid monopolization and unfair competition, and thus, it is imperative that the maze be navigated through with critical accuracy and precision. Understanding the extent of market power and the risk of monopolies involves assessing both geographic and product markets. The geographic market refers to the area where the product is sold or the patent is enforced, while the product market includes the category of products or services considered substitutes. These definitions are essential to prevent exclusive licenses from creating regional or global monopolies and to ensure that patents on specific products do not stifle the development and sale of alternative treatments. Anti-competitive practices such as exclusive licensing, cross-licensing, and patent pools must be scrutinized. Exclusive licensing can reduce competition if it grants excessive control to one licensee, and cross-licensing arrangements can be problematic if they lead to market control agreements among major competitors.

Additionally, clauses on pricing or output in licensing agreements can manipulate the market, necessitating compliance with antitrust laws to prevent such outcomes. Regulatory compliance with antitrust laws, designed to prevent anti-competitive behaviour and promote fair competition, relies on well-defined markets to assess the competitive impact of licensing agreements accurately. For instance, in the pharmaceutical industry, a company with a patented life-saving drug might dominate the market. Regulatory authorities would define the relevant market to include all possible substitutes for the drug, ensuring that licensing practices do not prevent other companies from developing or selling competing treatments. Similarly, in the technology sector, a firm with a key patent in wireless communication would be assessed on how its licensing practices impact competition and innovation within the defined market. By carefully defining and analyzing relevant markets, patent holders can create licensing agreements that are profitable and compliant with competition laws, fostering a healthy and competitive market environment.

Challenges of Market Definition and the Competition Act

Defining the relevant market can be a complex task, and the Competition Act adds another layer of complexity. Rapid technological advancements blur the lines between product categories, encouraging a broad definition of the relevant market to prevent companies from leveraging their IP to stifle competition in adjacent markets. Substitute products can also complicate market definition, as seemingly different products may address the same underlying consumer need. Identifying all relevant substitutes becomes crucial under the Competition Act to ensure a fair and competitive market.

The Ericsson-Lava Verdict: A Landmark Decision in SEP Litigation

The recent FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) rate-setting decision from the Delhi High Court (DHC) in the dispute between Ericsson and Indian mobile maker Lava sheds light on several key aspects of SEP litigation in India. The case involved Ericsson's portfolio of SEPs for 2G and 3G technology. Key takeaways from the court include:

• Strengthening Patent Validity Assessments: The court introduced the "Seven Stambhas Approach" for evaluating the novelty of an invention, providing valuable guidance for future patent validity assessments.
• Aligning with International Norms on SEP Infringement: The court acknowledged the two-step test for establishing SEP infringement, aligning with international precedent.
• Patent Exhaustion and Licensing Agreements: The court clarified that the absence of direct agreements or indemnification from suppliers weakens the argument of patent exhaustion.
• FRAND Rate Setting: The court provided a roadmap for FRAND rate calculations, emphasizing factors like comparable agreements, sales figures, and end-device royalty rates. The court notably rejected the smallest saleable patent practicing unit (SSPPU) approach favoured by some licensees.
• A Novel Approach to Royalty Rate Apportionment: The court introduced the concept of apportioning the royalty rate based on the number of valid patents, potentially influential in future cases.

Implications and Future Outlook

The Ericsson-Lava verdict has significant implications for both SEP holders and implementers in India. By providing a clearer framework for patent validity assessment, SEP infringement, and FRAND rate setting, the decision helps navigate the complexities of IP licensing in this dynamic market. However, the challenges of market definition and navigating the Competition Act remain. For companies entering into licensing agreements in India, careful planning and adherence to the principles of the Competition Act are crucial. Engaging qualified professionals with expertise in market definition, royalty rate calculations, and Indian competition law is essential. By acknowledging the challenges and taking proactive steps, both licensors and licensees can ensure a smooth and successful licensing experience, fostering innovation and economic growth within a competitive Indian market. The Ericsson-Lava verdict, while significant, is just one step towards a robust and efficient SEP licensing ecosystem in India.

Authors: Anshu Singh,Ritwik Tyagi and Simran Tandon