Broadcasters, Tech Groups Disagree on FCC ATSC 3.0 Patent Licensing
NAB, broadcasters and tech groups don’t agree whether LG’s withdrawal from the ATSC 3.0 device market (see 2310060068) is a signal the FCC should police patent licensing for 3.0 tech, according to reply comments filed in docket 16-142 by Monday’s deadline. LG’s decision “should be viewed as an unfortunate data point in a marketplace that is still in the process of developing, not as an invitation to unprecedented and overbroad Commission regulation,” said NAB. “LG will almost certainly be only the first of many manufacturers to have no choice but to forego integration or production of ATSC 3.0 technology-based products,” said electronics firm Continental Automotive Systems (CAS). Leaving the patent issue unaddressed by the FCC “is ultimately an existential threat to successful and widespread ATSC 3.0 adoption,” CAS said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
CAS and ACT | the App Association argued the FCC has to involve itself in 3.0 patents because the agency’s rules require using the ATSC 3.0 standard. The FCC “is obligated to assess the ability for U.S. businesses to fairly compete in the relevant market when a technical standard is incorporated into regulation,” said ACT. Small tech companies need to be certain upstream patent holders will be required to deal with them fairly, ACT said. The agency should adopt a fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) patent licensing network for 3.0 that would require fair terms for patent licenses, a ban on requiring nonessential patent licenses and requirements that infringement disputes must be solely adjudicated in U.S. courts, said CAS. “The risk to ATSC 3.0 adoption could not be more clear -- LG’s predicament is and will be faced by every set and component manufacturer that wants to license SEPs [standard essential patents] in order to produce ATSC 3.0 components.”
“The very last place” for the FCC is “asserting unsupported jurisdiction to decide these highly complex tracking issues and arrogate to itself with no statutory underpinnings” the job of patent licensing dispute resolution, said One Media. “No commenter has identified any statutory basis for Commission regulation of the patent marketplace,” said NAB. Constellation Designs, the company behind the patent lawsuit that led to LG pausing manufacture of 2024 devices, isn’t an ATSC member or an FCC licensee, NAB noted. That means potential FCC rules “requiring certain terms for licensing of patents related to ATSC 3.0 would likely not apply to Constellation,” NAB said. “Commission action could thus have the unintended consequence of distorting the market and creating unhelpful incentives for entities not subject to Commission regulation.”
CTA didn’t take a position on whether the FCC has the power to regulate patent licensing for 3.0 but urged the agency to scrutinize patent holders “that did not participate in the ATSC 3.0 standard development process but claim to have patents essential to the standard and are unwilling to commit to license them” under reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms. LG’s manufacturing pause shows patent license abuse “is impacting advancement of technology and the rollout of NEXTGEN TV products and will have a detrimental impact on consumer choice,” CTA said.
FCC supervision of patent licensing is “necessary and appropriate” said MVPD group ATVA, while ATSC 3.0 patent holder Avanci Broadcast condemned commenters pushing for FCC intervention that aren’t involved in ATSC 3.0. “A few commentators -- none of whom has any business interest in the adoption or success of ATSC 3.0 technology -- have made a set of unfounded assertions about the state of licensing of ATSC 3.0 patents that lack any basis in reality,” said Avanci. “When the true facts are considered, there is clearly no justification or need for the Commission to attempt to regulate the licensing of ATSC 3.0 patents.”