Context: For the early adopters of the 5G standard among car makers, the window for an early-bird rate ($29 per car instead of $32) from Avanci 5G recently closed, as ip fray mentioned in connection with Volkswagen’s license agreement (February 20, 2024 ip fray article). There was a possibility of other deals having concluded before the deadline, too, as there were still some announcements of license deals even several weeks after the end of the 4G early-bird period in the late summer of 2022.
What’s new: Avanci Vehicle president Laurie Fitzgerald announced on LinkedIn today that Ford has taken a 5G license as well (March 5, 2024 LinkedIn post). The Ford logo can now also be seen among the licensees listed on the Avanci Vehicle 5G webpage, taking the number of 5G-licensed automotive brands to 30.
Direct impact: The timing, close to the early-bird deadline for those who already had 5G cars on the market when Avanci 5G launched, is hardly a coincidence. There is an increasing possibility that the 5G licensing process will work without, or with minimal, infringement litigation. There weren’t many enforcement campaigns around Avanci 4G, and some companies who initially declined to take that license have done so without litigation for 5G, notably Mercedes (then named Daimler), Volkswagen (which took a 3G license early but didn’t upgrade all brands to 4G), and now Ford.
Wider ramifications: The smooth Avanci Vehicle 5G licensing process contrasts with claims made in the debate over the proposed EU regulation on standard-essential patents (SEPs). And taken together with positive developments surrounding some of the pools Avanci launched more recently, Avanci as a pool administrator has momentum and is on a clear growth trajectory.
About two years ago, Ford was still embroiled in litigation over 4G SEPs. It then lost a Munich case to Japanese licensing firm IP Bridge and took the Avanci 4G license. Not long thereafter, adoption of the Avanci pool picked up speed.
It’s significant that there are now several license deals for Avanci 5G in place with some who initially opted for litigation about 4G. If a company previously decided to risk litigation, it would do it again unless it looked at the deal terms versus the costs and prospects of litigation only to conclude that an amicable agreement is the smarter choice.
Every time one major automotive group takes a license, it increases the likelihood of similarly-situated companies (which also tend to benchmark their costs and overall performance against their peers) joining as well. For instance, General Motors’ 5G license became known before (February 13, 2024 ip fray article). Those companies are neighbors and both make high volumes of cars, just that GM believes in a greater diversity of brands (though not to the extent it used to). Similarly, all three major German car makers are 5G-licensed by now: Mercedes was first, followed by BMW and, with not much of a delay, Volkswagen. That’s also a geographic cluster pattern.
In Avanci 4G’s case, a reasonable argument can be made that the combination of 50+ patent holders and dozens of car makers would likely have resulted in far more litigation without Avanci than it did with Avanci. There would have been thousands of potential conflicts, some of which would have given rise to infringement complaints. With Avanci 5G, it’s obvious now that it has already helped to avoid a significant amount of litigation that would likely have happened in its absence.
Not all car makers are actually making 5G cars by now (not even Tesla, which normally prides itself on being at the forefront of digital innovation), and of the Western ones who do, Avanci may already have pretty complete coverage. Some have been making 5G cars for long enough that there inevitably would have been some enforcement action if not for Avanci’s efforts to bring licensors and licensees together.
For those that haven’t even started making 5G cars, the early-bird period will begin when they ship the first one. Should there be silence from Avanci 5G for a number of months now, it may just have to do with market adoption of the standard, not with the pool’s penetration of the actually addressable market.