Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Feb. 2007 Complaint To ETSI Re Motorola Refusal To License US TETRA Patents
Feb. 2007 Complaint To ETSI Re Motorola Refusal To License US TETRA Patents
Nationwide spectrum & solutions for ITS & environment Berkeley California
Director General
European Technical Standards Institute
650, route des Lucioles
06921 Sophia-Antipolis Cedex
FRANCE
Director General:
Last month, I discussed the matters of this letter with Marcello Pagnozzi and Michael
Froehlich, to whom I am emailing this letter as noted above. As a result of that discussion, I
submit this request for assistance within ETSI policy and procedure for purposes noted below.
My companies, listed above, are described in our website listed above. These companies,
which are commonly controlled by the undersigned, have a joint venture, listed above, for
technology and other matters. This joint venture plans to join ETSI as an associate member for
purposes noted herein once we ascertain the proper procedures.
In brief, as described in our website, we have FCC licenses nationwide in certain lower
900 and lower 200 MHz radio services for wide-area Intelligent Transportation Systems (“ITS”)
and complementary applications. We seek to use TETRA phase 1 and 2 products for these
purposes, after suitable adaptation to our frequency bands. Several TETRA equipment
companies that are ETSI members have committed to provide such products for our use, subject
to clearing up the legal issues describe herein based on Motorola patent assertions.
However, for years and to the present time, I have been informed by other potential
TETRA users, and by Motorola directly, that Motorola asserts legal rights to block and will block
TETRA in the US.1 In particular, Motorola attorneys informed me that Motorola will sue for
patent infringement, to obtain a court injunction to block any entity, including my companies, that
buy or use (even for nonprofit research purposes) any TETRA products in our nation. Exhibit 1
hereto is the latest example. Also, the TETRA Association and its members who make TETRA
equipment are also aware this blocking position of Motorola.
After review in recent months, my companies do not believe that Motorola can lawfully
assert, including for purposes of patent infringement action, any US patents that are or may be
essential to TETRA, since it has failed to timely declare these to ETSI under the ETSI IPR
Policy, and that failure, we believe, constitutes violation of US antitrust law for reasons given in
the unanimous decision of the Federal Trade Commission in August 2006 in the Matter of
Rambus Incorporated, Docket No. 9302.
1
Motorola has asserted that since APCO or ANSI has not adopted TETRA, that the US market
does not seek TETRA, and that is the reason Motorola will not license its patents essential for
TETRA. (See, e.g., the Exhibit hereto.) However, those organizations do not constitute or dictate
to the US market. My companies alone have sufficient licensed spectrum and capability to
represent a substantial market for TETRA, and we know of many others interested. Indeed, the
predictable high interest is obvious due to TETRA’s competitive strengths.
2
See end of Exhibit 2 below. I believe those nine patents relate to TETRA 2. I do not address
those herein, other than to note that, at least for some TETRA products and systems, it may be
ineffective to license patents essential for TETRA 2 if patents essential for underlying TETRA 1
technology are not available, and if that is the case, then declaring these as available under the
ETSI IPR Policy is not practical.
If the above inquiry does not result in prompt compliance with items 1 and 2, then we
request that ETSI undertake any other useful measure(s) within your policies and procedures to
enable US companies, including ours, to secure and use TETRA in our nation, to enable TETRA
vendors the major opportunity this will provide.
It is our belief that weekly there are substantial losses occurring to US companies, the US
public, and TETRA vendors willing to fairly compete in the US, by the blocking noted above.
There is still an excellent opportunity for TETRA in the US, but time is of the essence, and the
opportunity may diminish if not developed reasonable soon. For my companies, we need to clear
up this matter and proceed substantially with TETRA this year, and many other US companies
and agencies are in similar positions.
If you find it useful, it is acceptable to transmit a copy of this letter to Motorola and any
other party relevant to our request above.
Sincerely,
Encls.
3
By this request, and any response to it by Motorola, we do not waive our position that such
Motorola patents may be unenforceable with respect to Tetra equipment sales and use in the US,
based on the Rambus decision note above and for other reasons.
13. 14. Etc. ?? Regarding TETRA infrastructure and others regarding terminals ??
-------------------
Below Motorola US patents were declared October 10, 2006 to ETSI for TETRA (ETSI TS 100
392-2) as available for licensing under the ETSI IPR Policy.
1. US 5519730. May 30, 91. Communication Signal Having a time Domain Pilot Component.
(On US Patent listing: Encryption synchronization combined with encryption key
identification.)
2. US 5185796. May 31, 91. Transmitting encryption key ID with encrypted data.
3. US 5241544. Nov 01, 91. Phase rotation of sub-carriers to provide fixed pilot symbols.
4. US 5343499. Jan 09, 92. Frequency and phase synchronization on QAM sub-carriers.
5. US 5381449. Nov 01, 91. Peak to average power ratio reduction method- QAM.
6. US 5533004. Nov 07, 94. Method for Providing and Selecting Amongst Multiple Date
Rates. Using fixed sized blocks (atomic units).
8. US 6424678. Aug 01, 00. Using a repeated pattern of synchronization and pilot symbols.
Scalable Pattern Methodology