DOJ Antitrust Division Takes "Extraordinary Step" in Issuing Supplemental Business Review Letter to IEEE
Client Alert | 2 min read | 09.29.20
On September 10, the U.S. Department of Justice took what it described as an “extraordinary step” and issued a Supplemental Business Review Letter to its previous 2015 Business Review Letter to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE). IEEE is a standards development organization (SDO) that has developed thousands of international standards, including the 802.11 family of Wi-Fi standards. The DOJ’s latest letter to IEEE revised significant aspects of the DOJ’s original analysis of IEEE’s 2015 patent policy to align with current DOJ competition policy positions on standards development and SDO policies for providing access to standard essential patents.
In 2015, the IEEE had sought DOJ antitrust review of contemplated licensing-related policies (1) restricting the ability of parties to seek injunctive relief, (2) interpreting the meaning of “reasonable rate” in FRAND licensing, (3) delineating when it was acceptable for a standard essential patent licensor to demand reciprocal licensing, and (4) suggesting limits on the ability of a patent licensor to restrict licensing based on a prospective licensee’s production levels. The DOJ’s 2015 letter indicated that the DOJ did not have any present intention to challenge the proposal in court. And in the years since standards implementers sometimes used the letter against standard essential patent holders attempting to enforce patent rights.
In its Supplemental Business Review Letter, the DOJ emphasized that the 2015 letter had been frequently and incorrectly cited as an endorsement of IEEE’s policies, rather than a mere statement of the DOJ’s antitrust enforcement intention. In addition, citing cases such as the Ninth Circuit’s recent Qualcomm decision, the DOJ also stated that U.S. law has evolved in the past five years. In particular the DOJ claimed that the potential patent hold-up discussed in the 2015 letter had not come to fruition to the degree anticipated. The DOJ also pushed back on limitations on royalties and injunctive relief. In sum, the Supplemental Business Review Letter revised the previous letter to IEEE to align with current administration policy, which is less inclined to treat disputes over FRAND licensing terms as antitrust violations.
The IEEE supplemental letter follows DOJ’s recent Business Review Letter evaluating the Avanci licensing platform for standard essential patents used in vehicles and other products. The DOJ determined that the proposed platform could enhance essential patent licensing by vehicle manufacturers, and confirmed the DOJ was not inclined to initiate an antitrust enforcement action.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25

