• State Suggested Answer
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 75 subscribers
  • Views 206 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Attachments (0)
Nordic Case Info
  • Case ID: 342894
Options

Is Using BLE in Personal, Non-Commercial Projects Actually Illegal? (Response from Bluetooth SIG Included)

bart921

While working on a device for personal use, I needed to reference some official BLE documentation. I noticed that many of the documents — including:

…contain a notice like this:

"Use of this specification by anyone who is not a member of Bluetooth SIG is
prohibited and is an infringement of the intellectual property rights of Bluetooth
SIG and its members. The furnishing of this specification does not grant any
license to any intellectual property of Bluetooth SIG or its members."

Interestingly, documents like [Assigned Numbers (link)] do not contain this restriction.

That raised a red flag for me. I understand I’m not allowed to use the Bluetooth name or logo, and that seems totally fair. But since this is a private, non-commercial project, I cannot become a SIG member — especially considering that membership isn’t even available for individuals or sole proprietorships.

But here’s the confusing part: even if I use a chip that comes with a vendor-supplied Bluetooth stack (like nRF, ESP32, STM32WB, etc.), and even when the chip vendor and stack maintainer is a Bluetooth SIG member, it appears I’m still violating the terms and feel like I’m doing something illegal just by building a BLE-based prototype at home.

So I decided to ask directly and sent an email to Bluetooth SIG. Honestly, I didn’t expect a reply — but they did respond.

For clarity: I know there are thousands of open-source BLE projects out there, and I’m not expecting to be “hunted down” for this. This is not about avoiding consequences — it’s about doing the right thing. I respect intellectual property, and I want to make sure I act within the rules.

But if I understood their response correctly, unless I’m employed by a company that’s a SIG member and officially developing a qualified product, I have no legal right to even reference the specification, much less develop or test a BLE application at home — even if it’s just for learning or private use.

Am I misunderstanding something?
Or is this really how the rules are written?

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not using formal legal language — so it's entirely possible that I've misunderstood something here. But as someone who tries to act ethically and stay within the rules, I'm trying to make sure I really understand what those rules are.
If I'm wrong — please correct me. I want to be wrong on this.

Any insight would be truly appreciated.

Me:


Response from SIG:

Me:

Response from SIG:


That was about as cynical and dismissive as it gets.
formal form of:
"We won't answer your questions. We won't clear up your doubts. Do whatever you want – but if anything happens, you're fu***d."


Parents
  • 0

    This is a quite interesting question! Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer so anything I state might be wrong.

    You said you don't care about the Bluetooth name or logo, so I'm not going to discuss the Bluetooth trademark requirements except saying that if you want to use the Bluetooth trademark in a product you release, you most likely need to certify that product at Bluetooth SIG.

    First some background information. Bluetooth SIG was founded over 20+ years ago by big corps like Ericsson and Nokia. Their business model is to develop radio protocols and specifications, file tons of patents for this technology, let product makers use this technology, and then claim license fees from these companies. It is not in their interest to deal with hobbyists since that most likely takes too much time and won't bring in that much money. For the same reason, I don't expect support staff at Bluetooth SIG would know all the legal details what would happen if private individuals would experiment with Bluetooth at home.

    Let's take a look at one of these patents that covers Bluetooth technology: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2080350B1/en. The claim number 1 exactly covers a central device that performs active BLE scanning (receiving ADV_IND, sending SCAN_REQ, receiving SCAN_RSP). I would assume most of these patents relate to the underlying radio technology or Link Layer protocols. I don't think there are that many patents that cover the higher-level parts of a Bluetooth stack.

    The notice you refer to say that "Use of this specification by anyone who is not a member of Bluetooth SIG is prohibited and is an infringement of the intellectual property rights of Bluetooth SIG and its members". Note that this piece of text doesn't really introduce any new restrictions. It is just a reminder that the Bluetooth technology is patented, and with that follows the usual restrictions when it comes to patents, like you need to have a license to use the patented technology. In my opinion, the text is a bit exaggerating, since not all parts of the spec is patented. In particular, most of the features part of Bluetooth Classic (from version 2.0) that are still part of the latest spec, have probably had their patents expired by now. I assume the BLE patents covering the original BT 4.0 features will expire soon as well (within maybe five years). There are most likely many parts of the standard that have never been covered by any patent. In any case, this notice does not restrict you from reading the specification text or referencing it, nor learning the technology; it's only there to remind you about the patents.

    Let's also take a look at the Bluetooth Patent/Copyright License Agreement ("PCLA"): https://www.bluetooth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/PCLA-ESign-Version-Version-11.pdf. Basically, this says that if you are a BT SIG member, you automatically receive patent licenses from the patent holders that allow you to make, use, sell and distribute "Compliant Portions". A "Compliant Portion" is a piece of hardware and/or software implementing the Bluetooth standard and has passed Bluetooth qualification. The license grant includes all Promoters' patents necessary to implement any part of the Bluetooth Specification. The patent grant only applies to the "Compliant Portions" themselves (i.e. if you make a product incorporating a "Compliant Portion", then the patent grant does not apply to other components of this product). The license grant explicitly does not include patents regarding anything else (like APIs, applications, user interfaces). Note that this document covers everything about the tech stuff of Bluetooth. There are no other licenses or "terms" you need to be aware of that regulates the legalities of using Bluetooth technology (except possibly licenses relating to actual written ready implementations, like the software license of a particular Bluetooth stack, and the Bluetooth trademark stuff). The reason you don't find the notice you mentioned in the Assigned numbers is probably because that document is not subject to the PCLA.

    So, without being a member, it appears you would infringe on the patents that cover Bluetooth technology, since you would then not have been granted that license just mentioned? Well, not necessarily. Let's say you own a product that you have bought that uses patented technology (fridge, smartphone, TV). You most likely don't have a license from the patent holder directly to use this product. Instead, the product manufacturer has received a license from the patent holder that allows him to sell the product. How come you don't also need a license from the patent holder to actually use the technology? This is called "patent exhaustion". Please see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_of_intellectual_property_rights or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine_under_U.S._law. In short, this common "doctrine" means that a patent holder's right ends or are "exhausted" at the moment the company sells the particular licensed product in question, which means the patent holder cannot sue you (the end user) for using the product. What if instead of buying a product that has patented technology, you build it from scratch? According to https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/24148/can-i-build-something-for-personal-use-if-it-is-patented, it depends on where you live. If you live in the US, that is illegal since that would infringe on the patent (although the patent owner would be highly unlikely to ever find out about your infringement). But if you live in Europe (at least in the Netherlands or in Germany), patents apparently don't cover private, non-commercial use. That said, according to this information, it seems you are free to do whatever you want with Bluetooth if you do it privately, non-commercially.

    But what if you live in the US? Then we are back to the question about what happens if you buy a product using patented technology as an end user, where the manufacturer was authorized to sell such a product, i.e. it has the necessary patent licenses. Let's say you buy a fully certified Bluetooth product, such as a smartphone, computer, Raspberry Pi, or devkit, and you use the provided already certified Bluetooth Stack. Assuming you simply use the provided Bluetooth APIs on this product, I don't see why that would result in any patent infringement. Please take a look at this answer here, which includes a reply from Bluetooth SIG: https://stackoverflow.com/a/69569804. They say "In most cases, smartphone applications use the smartphone OS' SDK/API and do not implement new or extra Bluetooth functionality. In these cases Qualification is not required or possible.". So, simply using the existing Bluetooth stack on an already certified product should not cause any patent infringements. Regarding open-source Bluetooth projects on GitHub, as long as they are just applications using Bluetooth APIs, I don't see why they would infringe on any Bluetooth patent, for the same reason.

    What if you make a new product which uses your devboard or certified Bluetooth module as a component (like you build a case, put in the devkit plus some extra hardware and wire it together)? Even in that case, the "patent exhaustion" doctrine should have you covered. See for example this supreme court case: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/553/617/. Here, LG owns a patent. Intel produces a technical component using LG-patented technology. Quanta builds computers having this Intel component. LG has granted Intel a patent license. Intel sells this component to Quanta. Quanta got sued by LG for patent infringement. The court gives Quanta right and denies LG's complaint and refers to the patent exhaustion doctrine. The outcome of this court case makes it clear that it is allowed to put a licensed component in an enclosing product, without having to apply for a new license for that enclosing product. You could also take a look at https://electronics.stackexchange.com/a/669749/539697, where Bluetooth SIG sued a car company for having Bluetooth-equipped "head units" in the car it manufacturers. These embedded Bluetooth products were already Bluetooth certified but the car company didn't make their own Bluetooth certification. This is not really about patent infringement but about misusing the Bluetooth trademark and logo. The car company used the BT trademark and logo. BT SIG was told by the court that it is ok to embed a certified product in another product without having to apply for their own certification, as long as the seller adequately discloses how the trademarked product was incorporated.

    Conclusion:
    If you live in Europe, it seems you are fine and good to go and do whatever you like with Bluetooth technology, as long as you do it for private, non-commercial purposes.
    If you live in the US, as long as you use already certified products and Bluetooth stacks which you build your application around, you should be fine. You might however infringe on the Bluetooth patents if you build your own radio hardware or create your own Bluetooth stack.

    I hope I am correct in my answers. Please correct me if not and give references to sources claiming the opposite in that case.

Reply
  • 0

    This is a quite interesting question! Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer so anything I state might be wrong.

    You said you don't care about the Bluetooth name or logo, so I'm not going to discuss the Bluetooth trademark requirements except saying that if you want to use the Bluetooth trademark in a product you release, you most likely need to certify that product at Bluetooth SIG.

    First some background information. Bluetooth SIG was founded over 20+ years ago by big corps like Ericsson and Nokia. Their business model is to develop radio protocols and specifications, file tons of patents for this technology, let product makers use this technology, and then claim license fees from these companies. It is not in their interest to deal with hobbyists since that most likely takes too much time and won't bring in that much money. For the same reason, I don't expect support staff at Bluetooth SIG would know all the legal details what would happen if private individuals would experiment with Bluetooth at home.

    Let's take a look at one of these patents that covers Bluetooth technology: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2080350B1/en. The claim number 1 exactly covers a central device that performs active BLE scanning (receiving ADV_IND, sending SCAN_REQ, receiving SCAN_RSP). I would assume most of these patents relate to the underlying radio technology or Link Layer protocols. I don't think there are that many patents that cover the higher-level parts of a Bluetooth stack.

    The notice you refer to say that "Use of this specification by anyone who is not a member of Bluetooth SIG is prohibited and is an infringement of the intellectual property rights of Bluetooth SIG and its members". Note that this piece of text doesn't really introduce any new restrictions. It is just a reminder that the Bluetooth technology is patented, and with that follows the usual restrictions when it comes to patents, like you need to have a license to use the patented technology. In my opinion, the text is a bit exaggerating, since not all parts of the spec is patented. In particular, most of the features part of Bluetooth Classic (from version 2.0) that are still part of the latest spec, have probably had their patents expired by now. I assume the BLE patents covering the original BT 4.0 features will expire soon as well (within maybe five years). There are most likely many parts of the standard that have never been covered by any patent. In any case, this notice does not restrict you from reading the specification text or referencing it, nor learning the technology; it's only there to remind you about the patents.

    Let's also take a look at the Bluetooth Patent/Copyright License Agreement ("PCLA"): https://www.bluetooth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/PCLA-ESign-Version-Version-11.pdf. Basically, this says that if you are a BT SIG member, you automatically receive patent licenses from the patent holders that allow you to make, use, sell and distribute "Compliant Portions". A "Compliant Portion" is a piece of hardware and/or software implementing the Bluetooth standard and has passed Bluetooth qualification. The license grant includes all Promoters' patents necessary to implement any part of the Bluetooth Specification. The patent grant only applies to the "Compliant Portions" themselves (i.e. if you make a product incorporating a "Compliant Portion", then the patent grant does not apply to other components of this product). The license grant explicitly does not include patents regarding anything else (like APIs, applications, user interfaces). Note that this document covers everything about the tech stuff of Bluetooth. There are no other licenses or "terms" you need to be aware of that regulates the legalities of using Bluetooth technology (except possibly licenses relating to actual written ready implementations, like the software license of a particular Bluetooth stack, and the Bluetooth trademark stuff). The reason you don't find the notice you mentioned in the Assigned numbers is probably because that document is not subject to the PCLA.

    So, without being a member, it appears you would infringe on the patents that cover Bluetooth technology, since you would then not have been granted that license just mentioned? Well, not necessarily. Let's say you own a product that you have bought that uses patented technology (fridge, smartphone, TV). You most likely don't have a license from the patent holder directly to use this product. Instead, the product manufacturer has received a license from the patent holder that allows him to sell the product. How come you don't also need a license from the patent holder to actually use the technology? This is called "patent exhaustion". Please see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_of_intellectual_property_rights or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine_under_U.S._law. In short, this common "doctrine" means that a patent holder's right ends or are "exhausted" at the moment the company sells the particular licensed product in question, which means the patent holder cannot sue you (the end user) for using the product. What if instead of buying a product that has patented technology, you build it from scratch? According to https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/24148/can-i-build-something-for-personal-use-if-it-is-patented, it depends on where you live. If you live in the US, that is illegal since that would infringe on the patent (although the patent owner would be highly unlikely to ever find out about your infringement). But if you live in Europe (at least in the Netherlands or in Germany), patents apparently don't cover private, non-commercial use. That said, according to this information, it seems you are free to do whatever you want with Bluetooth if you do it privately, non-commercially.

    But what if you live in the US? Then we are back to the question about what happens if you buy a product using patented technology as an end user, where the manufacturer was authorized to sell such a product, i.e. it has the necessary patent licenses. Let's say you buy a fully certified Bluetooth product, such as a smartphone, computer, Raspberry Pi, or devkit, and you use the provided already certified Bluetooth Stack. Assuming you simply use the provided Bluetooth APIs on this product, I don't see why that would result in any patent infringement. Please take a look at this answer here, which includes a reply from Bluetooth SIG: https://stackoverflow.com/a/69569804. They say "In most cases, smartphone applications use the smartphone OS' SDK/API and do not implement new or extra Bluetooth functionality. In these cases Qualification is not required or possible.". So, simply using the existing Bluetooth stack on an already certified product should not cause any patent infringements. Regarding open-source Bluetooth projects on GitHub, as long as they are just applications using Bluetooth APIs, I don't see why they would infringe on any Bluetooth patent, for the same reason.

    What if you make a new product which uses your devboard or certified Bluetooth module as a component (like you build a case, put in the devkit plus some extra hardware and wire it together)? Even in that case, the "patent exhaustion" doctrine should have you covered. See for example this supreme court case: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/553/617/. Here, LG owns a patent. Intel produces a technical component using LG-patented technology. Quanta builds computers having this Intel component. LG has granted Intel a patent license. Intel sells this component to Quanta. Quanta got sued by LG for patent infringement. The court gives Quanta right and denies LG's complaint and refers to the patent exhaustion doctrine. The outcome of this court case makes it clear that it is allowed to put a licensed component in an enclosing product, without having to apply for a new license for that enclosing product. You could also take a look at https://electronics.stackexchange.com/a/669749/539697, where Bluetooth SIG sued a car company for having Bluetooth-equipped "head units" in the car it manufacturers. These embedded Bluetooth products were already Bluetooth certified but the car company didn't make their own Bluetooth certification. This is not really about patent infringement but about misusing the Bluetooth trademark and logo. The car company used the BT trademark and logo. BT SIG was told by the court that it is ok to embed a certified product in another product without having to apply for their own certification, as long as the seller adequately discloses how the trademarked product was incorporated.

    Conclusion:
    If you live in Europe, it seems you are fine and good to go and do whatever you like with Bluetooth technology, as long as you do it for private, non-commercial purposes.
    If you live in the US, as long as you use already certified products and Bluetooth stacks which you build your application around, you should be fine. You might however infringe on the Bluetooth patents if you build your own radio hardware or create your own Bluetooth stack.

    I hope I am correct in my answers. Please correct me if not and give references to sources claiming the opposite in that case.

Children
No Data
Related
Terms of service