FCC Has No Authority to Grant 911 Patent Dispute Relief, Qualcomm Says
Industry commenters largely acknowledged that Telecommunication Systems (TCS) identified a real problem in its petition last August -- companies providing E-911 and next-generation 911 call routing and location information and carriers face predatory lawsuits by patent assertion entities (PAEs). But commenters disagreed whether the FCC can grant the relief sought by TCS. Qualcomm said not denying the petition would have “devastating public policy consequences.”
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
TCS asked the FCC to provide guidance on whether 28 U.S.C. Section 1498 applies to 911. The statute requires that whenever the government uses or manufactures an invention covered by a U.S. patent, without a license from the owner, the owner can only bring an action against the government, in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. TCS also asked the FCC to clarify that 911 services are in furtherance of government policy and can make use of patented technologies to comply with 911 regulations. In February, the Public Safety Bureau sought comment (http://bit.ly/Zrr3nf.) Comments were due Monday.
Qualcomm called on the FCC to reject the petition. “These requested actions are unprecedented and fall far outside the FCC’s authority under the Communications Act,” Qualcomm said (http://bit.ly/16VZ57i). “Federal courts -- not the FCC -- have authority to interpret these jurisdictional statutes. Neither the FCC’s organic statute, nor any other statute, gives the Commission authority to interpret these laws. Indeed, not once in its entire history has the FCC opined upon or even mentioned the jurisdictional provision at issue here, which is limited to the federal judiciary and judicial procedure."
But CTIA filed in support of TCS. “The wireless industry is committed to facilitating efficient and effective access to emergency communications services, and will continue to work to harness wireless innovations and advancements to improve those services for the benefit of public safety entities and consumers,” the group said (http://bit.ly/14m30ua). “However, patent infringement lawsuits based on compliance with FCC rules undermine these efforts."
Sprint Nextel agreed that TCS raised an issue the FCC needs to address. “The wireless industry has invested significant time and resources in furthering multiple important public safety initiatives, including E911,” the carrier said (http://bit.ly/10b09gS). “E911 vendors, service providers, and carriers, however, have been exposed to a large volume of litigation as a result of their efforts to comply with the Commission’s E911 mandates. These recurring infringement lawsuits have the potential to cause disruption, delay, or the inability to deliver E911 services, all as a result of compliance with government-mandated regulations.” Sprint said: “The language of Section 1498 clearly applies to the Commission’s E911 regulations.”
The TCS petition “exposes a problem that has been plaguing the telecommunications industry for years,” said MetroPCS (http://bit.ly/ZUUq1e). “Specifically, vexatious, patent infringement suits have been filed against providers of E911 services and capabilities whose only ‘crimes’ have been to make a good faith effort to comply with the FCC’s 911 regulations set forth in Section 20.18 of the Commission’s Rules and various agency decisions."
The National Emergency Number Association also questioned whether the FCC has jurisdiction to takes the steps TCS requested. “On its face, TCS’s petition reads as a plea for relief from the combined problems of PAEs and compulsory infringement -- a plea that NENA generally supports,” the group said (http://bit.ly/11HWKN5). “In light of recent developments in the 911 market, such as the PAE lawsuits identified by TCS, NENA is largely sympathetic to TCS’s plea. Despite NENA’s support for the general concepts presented in TCS’s petition, however, NENA neither supports nor believes that the Commission can provide the resolutions that TCS seeks.”