The Shareability Factor: Are Patent Pools Useful for Blockchain Innovation?
The launch of the first blockchain patent pool raises questions about the effectiveness such pools will have in the face of legal liabilities and the nascent nature of blockchain development.
November 20, 2017 at 09:45 AM
5 minute read
While there may be few enterprise blockchain platforms being deployed today, behind the scenes there are a growing number of organizations aiding efforts to more broadly bring the technology to market.
Add to those yet another: the Blockchain Patent Sharing Alliance (BSPA), an international organization founded by blockchain organizations in the United States, Canada and China. The alliance aims to create and manage a patent pool whereby blockchain innovators, patent investors, startups, enterprises and other entities can openly share, cross-license or trade patents.
While a potentially valuable and collaborative way to support innovation, the creation of blockchain patent pools may run into their fair share of legal and operational challenges. And in such a nascent space like blockchain, it's difficult to tell exactly what effects, if any, IP-focused tools like BPSA will have.
Theodore Mlynar, partner at Hogan Lovells, pointed out that it may be too early for blockchain patent pools given the relatively small number of issued blockchain patents in the current market. He explained, “There are many efforts underway to patent blockchain technology, resulting in the filing of thousands of patent applications for blockchain-related technologies, but not that many have issued.”
However, he added that he believes there is still a benefit in starting such a pool early on. “I would credit BPSA with trying to create a pool before the value of any set of patents becomes apparent, because once there are valuation differences between different sets of patents, it becomes that much more difficult to pool them,” he explained.
Joseph Loy, partner at Kirkland & Ellis, agreed, noting that starting a patent pool early may be useful “to set standards, to steer the technology in a particular direction, and to allow the organization to become a market leader.”
A patent pool's ability to define future innovation, however, will likely depend on what members join the pool in the first place. “You got to make sure that the ones that are holding the 'blocking patents'—the seminal patents in the blockchain space—are participating,” said Chinh Pham, who co-leads the emerging technology practice at Greenberg Traurig.
A patent pool's effectiveness might also wane if it is commercialized to the extent where it becomes accessible to only well-funded participants. Pham noted that if a patent pool starts charging “a premium for the service they are providing” or looks for other ways to “recoup some of the investment that they put into [the pool],” they might be less relied on in the industry they are trying to serve.
On the other hand, should a patent pool remain relatively inexpensive or free to use and become a formative force in an emerging technology industry, it could also stifle innovation through its domination of the market.
“Certainly, patent rights are government-issued monopoly rights, and those rights can be asserted against others who are not participating in the pool,” Loy said.
But should that happen, such patent pools are likely to run into legal liability. Mlynar explained, “The main concern here is antitrust or competition law issues, because we're talking about a group of industry participants who may have a significant amount of market power, especially in a new industry that would be able to create burdens and obstacles for new entrants.”
To be sure, while the BSPA is the first established patent pool for blockchain, it is far from the only patent pool in tech industry. “Entities like the Open Invention Network have been engaged in a similar type of activity for Linux-related inventions,” Mlynar said.
He added, “The entity called Askeladden has also been engaged in what they call a 'patent quality initiative' for opposing patents that might be problematic in the financial industry. And there are other more technology-focused entities like RPX that have a patent pooling model.”
Though other pools have yet to enter the blockchain space, it may be easy for them to join in. “An established patent pool might be in a better position to move forward with this than a new startup,” Mlynar said, noting that established pools might have an incentive to enter the blockchain industry if they believe they can create and manage a patent pool more effectively than BSPA.
Yet should patent pools launch as a global endeavor like BSPA, they may also run up against more than just antitrust liabilities. Multinational pools “will also need to navigate the laws of multiple countries and deal with the regulatory bodies in each of those countries to make sure they are in compliance,” Mlynar said.
Still, striving to have as far-reaching a patent pool as possible does offer the much-needed benefit of standardizing how an emerging technology like blockchain is used. “What I believe is going to be most beneficial might perhaps be the creation of a standard for blockchain,” Pham said.
He added, “There are several different approaches to blockchain technology right now, and with so many players, especially larger ones from many different businesses jumping into the space, you don't want a situation where you end up with many different approaches.”
For now, however, it remains to be seen whether the variety of organizations and stakeholders looking to promote blockchain innovation can coalesce around a single standard. But chances are, it's going to be a complex matter to accomplish, and one that will quite likely be a long time in the making.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1LexisNexis Announces Public Availability of Personalized AI Assistant Protégé
- 2Some Thoughts on What It Takes to Connect With Millennial Jurors
- 3Artificial Wisdom or Automated Folly? Practical Considerations for Arbitration Practitioners to Address the AI Conundrum
- 4The New Global M&A Kings All Have Something in Common
- 5Big Law Aims to Make DEI Less Divisive in Trump's Second Term
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250