Justice Department Gives Nod to EPC Gen 2 Patent Pool

In his letter, Barnett further stated, "Licensees could shop at a single stop for the patents of consortium members, rather than negotiating individually with seven separate parties for licenses. Licensees, though, would incur additional transaction costs to license patents from non-members."

The Department of Justice's response was strikingly supportive for the RFID patent pool, Ehler says, as well as surprisingly detailed regarding the opportunities for the market with this pool. Although the agency has previously approved other patent pool review requests, he notes, it has not done so with as much supportive language. "The DOJ has weighed in on patent pools a number of times," he states, "but nothing to this extent."

Ehler attributes that to the details by which the consortium described its efforts to offer fair and non-discriminatory rates, and to allow competition from independent patent-holder licensing agreements. The consortium, in a letter to the Department of Justice, also indicated that all members will be subject to the determination of an independent party as to whether their patented technology is essential.

"The consortium appears structured to preserve the patent expert's independence regarding his decisions about each patent's essentiality to the Gen 2 standard," Barnett wrote, adding that "members would no longer face the expensive and time-consuming tasks of searching out manufacturers who are using those members' intellectual property, or negotiating individual licenses... Instead, they would reap the cost savings of centralized licensing and would realize an immediate return on their intellectual property."

The business review request and the DOJ's response are available at the Department of Justice Web site.