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
© 2024 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 AllTrump Win Ignites Global Legal Market: Lawyers Prepare for High Demand and Uncertainty
Russia-Linked Deepfakes Are Hitting the US Election. Will It Spur Congress to Act?
AI Gives Legal Departments New Leverage to Demand Speed, Efficiency From Law Firms
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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