New SAE International Standard Establishes Accreditation Requirements for Labs Detecting Counterfeit Electrical and Electronic Parts and Components

https://www.sae.org/news/press-room/2018/06/new-sae-international-standard-establishes-accreditation-requirements-for-labs-detecting-counterfeit-electrical-and-electronic-parts-and-components

A new technical standard from SAE International establishes criteria to achieve consistency in the accreditation of test laboratories performing detection of suspect/counterfeit electrical, electronic and electromechanical (EEE) parts and component.

“AS6810: Requirements for Accreditation Bodies when Accrediting Test Laboratories Performing Detection of Suspect/Counterfeit in Accordance with AS6171 General Requirements and the Associated Test Methods” was created and developed by SAE International’s G-19A Test Laboratory Standards Development Committee.

AS6810 provides assessment requirements and guidance to ISO/IEC 17025 Accreditation Bodies for accreditation of test laboratories capabilities in detecting suspect/counterfeit electrical, electronic and electromechanical parts.  It will establish conformance to AS6171 – General Requirements for the scope of Test Methods within the AS6171 slash sheet(s). Test method-specific competence criteria are detailed in each individual AS6171 Test Method’s slash sheet.

SAE International’s G-19 Counterfeit Electronic Components Committee is chartered to address aspects of preventing, detecting, responding to and counteracting the threat of counterfeit electronic components. SAE continually seeks qualified professionals to serve on the G-19 Standards Committee. Interested participant can learn more by contacting Jordanna Bucciere at Jordanna.Bucciere@sae.org.

For more information about AS6810 or to purchase the standard, visit https://www.sae.org/standards/content/as6810/. 

SAE International is a global association committed to being the ultimate knowledge source for the engineering profession. By uniting over 127,000 engineers and technical experts, we drive knowledge and expertise across a broad spectrum of industries. We act on two priorities: encouraging a lifetime of learning for mobility engineering professionals and setting the standards for industry engineering. We strive for a better world through the work of our philanthropic SAE Foundation, including programs like A World in Motion® and the Collegiate Design Series™.

Fake flash memory can now be detected with simple technique

https://www.securingindustry.com/electronics-and-industrial/fake-flash-memory-can-now-be-detected-with-simple-technique/s105/a7754/#.WxFege4vw5t

Researchers have come up with a way to detect fake flash memory, one of the most widely counterfeited electronic components.

According to the researchers from The University of Alabama in Huntsville, flash memory – a non-volatile digital storage medium that stores data on a chip – is increasingly at high risk of counterfeiting because of its widespread use in electronic systems, including space applications and consumer electronics.

However, there have been few feasible solutions to detect counterfeits and recycled flash with high confidence mainly been because of the variability among different flash chips, the researchers said.  

To address this, the team developed a detection method based on a combination of the statistical distribution of various timing characteristics of memory and the number of faulty bits (the smallest unit of data in a computer).

The team was able to detect counterfeit flash memory with close to 100 per cent confidence.

“Most researchers focus on fail bit count or how fast the chip can read and write – they never worry about programme-erase time,” said Bahar Talukder, a graduate student involved with the development.

“But while fail bit count and read and write time do show changes, programme-erase time is the best metric because it shows the most amount of variation.” It’s also more consistent across manufacturers and tends to increase noticeably even after just a few programme-erase cycles, he added.

The researchers performed erase operations on sample flash memory chips and recorded the erase time. They found that programme time decreases, while erase time increases with the increasing number of programme-erase count. Fail bit count was found to increase with the increasing number of programme-erase count. 

The team found that they could achieve a 100 per cent confidence level of accurately detecting a recycled memory for a flash with just 3 per cent usage, noting that detection confidence increases with higher usage.

The technique was deemed inexpensive, non-destructive (in that is does not wear out the flash chip) and required no additional hardware or hardware modification. It was also widely applicable to a wide range of flash chips from different manufacturers.  

The team, which has filed several patent applications, hopes to turn the method into a smartphone application and a browser extension.

The researchers said the development was a significant move in being able to curb counterfeits and safeguard the electronic systems used in vital infrastructure.

“Failure of flash memory in critical applications can have catastrophic effects, from simply corrupting the system to enabling a hardware trojan attack. So, there is a big demand for this ability to detect counterfeit flash with high confidence,” said Dr M. Tauhidur Rahman, assistant professor at the university’s department of electrical and computer engineering.

The problem exists because of the high turnover of consumer electronics, with upgrades available annually, yet most of the electronic components remain functional once the old device is replaced with the upgrade. This e-waste is increasingly recycled and fraudulently resold as new. While the components remain functional, their life span, however, is greatly reduced, which can have adverse effects.

The problem has been further exacerbated in recent years as the semiconductor supply chain has shifted from a vertical to a horizontal model. “Because of manufacturers’ enhanced reliance on independent suppliers, these electronic systems are at a lot more risk of counterfeiting and piracy than ever,” said Dr Biswajit Ray, an assistant professor at the University’s department of electrical and computer engineering.

Furthermore, Ray added, counterfeiters are getting more savvy, making it harder to tell whether components in any given electronic system are fresh or recycled. All these factors highlight the need for a detection system.

However, developing a detection system that is sufficiently accurate has been challenging. Current approaches rely on the maintenance of an extensive database or on manufactures’ willingness to adopt sensor-based approaches.

The proposed method is now being tested against temperature and voltage variations, while a detection method using programme disturb characteristics is also being explored by the research team.

Procedures and strategies for anti-counterfeiting: United Kingdom

http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/Intelligence/Anti-counterfeiting/2018/Country-chapters/United-Kingdom

By Louise Foster and Varuni Paranavitane, AA Thornton & Co

Legal framework

The legal framework in the United Kingdom concerning anti-counterfeiting arises out of both national and EU legislation.

The primary piece of national legislation relating to trademarks in the United Kingdom is the Trademarks Act 1994. This act contains provisions covering trademark infringement as well as criminal offences relating to anti-counterfeiting.

The EU Trademark Regulation (2017/1001) governs the unauthorised use of EU trademarks. The EU Customs Enforcement Regulation (608/2013) concerns the customs enforcement of IP rights by customs authorities. Both regulations have effect in the United Kingdom.

The Fraud Act 2006 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 are other pieces of national legislation that are often relevant to criminal IP crime cases:

• Under the Fraud Act, it is a criminal offence to dishonestly make a false representation with an intention to make a gain for oneself or another or an intention to cause loss to another or expose another to a risk of loss, and to make or possess articles for use in or in connection with fraud, and to make or supply articles for use in fraud.
• the Proceeds of Crime Act provides for the recovery of assets and proceeds obtained through crime, including IP crime, as well as recovery of proceeds of crime through civil proceedings where a criminal conviction has not been possible.

Border measures

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and the Border Force are the UK government authorities responsible for the UK borders, including the enforcement of IP rights. HMRC is responsible for national policy on IP rights enforcement and the Border Force is the law enforcement unit that implements this policy.

The EU Customs Enforcement Regulation sets out the border procedures that all EU customs authorities must adopt to enforce IP rights against counterfeit, infringing or pirated goods. The Border Force implements these procedures.

Broadly, Border Force practice for dealing with suspect counterfeit, infringing or pirated goods found at the UK border is as follows:

• The Border Force identifies suspect counterfeit, infringing or pirated goods and detains these for 10 working days (extendable for a further 10 working days), or three working days for perishable goods.
• The Border Force uses a standard form to notify the rights holder and owner of the suspect goods (eg, the importer) of the detention and, where appropriate, sends a sample of the goods.
• Rights holders confirm within the set period whether the suspect goods are counterfeit, pirated or infringing and request destruction or release. The standard form is used to respond to the Border Force department. The form will have details of the specific Border Force representative involved.
• Owners of suspect goods must confirm if they agree to destruction within the set time period. The Border Force will assume implicit agreement to destruction of the goods where no response is received from the owner.
• If the owner contests destruction of the goods, the rights holder must commence legal proceedings within the set period to determine whether an IP right has been infringed in order to have the goods destroyed.

To aid detection of suspect goods, holders of IP rights with effect in the United Kingdom or other EU member states are advised to submit an application for action (AFA) to customs authorities. Having an AFA will assist the Border Force in identifying suspect goods as well as who the relevant contact is for the rights holder.

The Border Force will detain suspect goods where there is no AFA in place; however, rights holders will still need to submit an ex officio AFA in order to have the goods destroyed.

An AFA can be requested in respect of individual EU member states, provided that there is an IP right applicable to those member states. To apply for an EU-wide AFA, an EU-wide IP right is required.

When filing an AFA, rights holders must provide:

• details of relevant IP rights;
• details of the IP rights holder and the correct legal and technical contacts; and
• information on how to identify when a product might be infringing, counterfeit or pirated.

Information on rights holders’ genuine distribution chains, places of production and authorised distributors and importers is also requested if appropriate.

Alongside an AFA, rights holders can submit information to UK Customs regarding specific shipments of suspected counterfeit or infringing goods (a ‘red alert’) or data on new trends relating to counterfeiting or infringing goods (a ‘new trend’).

The IP Authorisation Unit is responsible for granting AFAs, red alerts and new trends. Relevant forms and details of where to send these are available on the HMRC website.

Endorsed by the European Commission and Europol, the Enforcement Database is a free tool that acts as a central database of the information usually submitted in an AFA to aid frontline enforcers in identifying infringing and counterfeit goods. The tool allows direct communication between enforcers and rights holders.

The Enforcement Database interacts with other existing databases such as the EU Intellectual Property Office register, TMView and DesignView.

A useful element of the Enforcement Database is that it can automatically generate a completed AFA and submit this to HMRC electronically. Manual entry by HMRC of the AFA information is not then required. The tool will not let a user generate the AFA until it has sufficient information, so users can be confident that an AFA submitted through the Enforcement Database should be accepted by HMRC.

The information entered is secure and access to more sensitive product details is easily controlled by the rights holder.

Further points to note include the following:

• An IP right must be in force to be covered by an AFA.
• Under an AFA, rights holders agree to be liable for the costs incurred by customs authorities in taking action to enforce IP rights, such as costs of destruction and storage of suspect goods.
• Rights holders are also liable where suspect goods are found non-infringing and the owner suffers damage.
• There are restrictions on how the information received regarding suspect goods detained by the Border Force can be used by rights holders.

Criminal prosecution

Under Section 92 of the Trademarks Act it is a criminal offence for a person, with a view to gain for himself or herself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor, to:

• apply to goods or their packaging, sell or let for hire, offer or expose for sale or hire or distribute goods which bear, or the packaging of which bears, a sign identical to or likely to be mistaken for a registered trademark;
• possess, have custody or control in the course of a business any such goods with a view to doing any of the aforementioned activities;
• apply a sign identical to or likely to be mistaken for a registered trademark to material intended to be used for labelling or packaging goods, as a business paper in relation to goods or for advertising goods;
• use in the course of a business material bearing such a sign for labelling or packaging goods, as a business paper in relation to goods or for advertising goods, or to possess, or have custody or control in the course of a business any such material with a view to doing any of the aforementioned activities; or
• make an article specifically designed or adapted for making copies of a sign identical to or likely to be mistaken for a registered trademark, or possess, have custody of or control such an article in the course of a business knowing that it has been, or is to be, used to produce goods or material for labelling or packaging goods, as a business paper in relation to goods or for advertising goods.

The Supreme Court recently held that these provisions can also apply to goods that are manufactured with the trademark owner’s consent but sold without its consent, so they do not necessarily concern only goods produced without the trademark owner’s consent.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is the public agency responsible for conducting criminal prosecution. Police will pass cases of offences committed under Section 92 of the Trademarks Act to the CPS for the purpose of bringing criminal proceedings against the suspected offenders.

National Trading Standards is the government authority that provides national and local protection and enforcement of IP rights. As well as conducting national campaigns and gathering intelligence into counterfeiting activity, Trading Standards has various regional teams that work alongside the police by carrying out a range of activities, including routine inspections of marketplaces and investigations into individuals and businesses.

Trading Standards is empowered to bring criminal prosecutions themselves, issue statutory notices and cautions, and obtain search and seizure orders from the courts.

The Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) is the specialist unit within the police service tasked with tackling serious and organised IP crime and in particular IP crime committed online. PIPCU works with other national government enforcement agencies and various groups representing areas of UK industry to stop counterfeit trading. PIPCU has powers to criminally prosecute. Rights holders can also submit cases themselves for consideration of investigation by PIPCU when evidence of IP crime has been found.

Individuals and legal entities have the right to bring private prosecutions under the various criminal IP provisions. The CPS has no influence over private prosecutions.

The majority of IP crime cases involve fraudulent conduct on the part of the offenders, so provisions of the Fraud Act are often enforced alongside the trademark criminal provisions. Where possible, the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act are also used to recover assets and money obtained through IP crime.

Civil enforcement

Legislative non-criminal provisions relating to trademark infringement are set out in Section 10 of the Trademarks Act (for UK trademarks) and Article 9 of the EU Trademark Regulation (for EU trademarks).

For counterfeit goods, the use of a sign in the course of trade will normally be identical to the registered trademark and in relation to identical goods. This will therefore constitute infringement under Section 10(1) of the Trademarks Act or Article 9(2)(a) of the Trademark Regulation. In the case of use of an identical mark on identical goods, the trademark owner is not required to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion.

Examples of use of the sign include:

• affixing a trademark to goods or packaging;
• offering the goods under the trademark for sale; and
• importing or exporting the goods under the trademark.

The trademark owner may bring an action under Section 10 of the Trademarks Act in the Chancery Division of the High Court. Lower-value cases should be brought in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, where damages and cost recovery are capped. For small-value claims, there is a separate small-claims track.

Before commencing any legal action, the trademark owner should normally consider sending a pre-action letter to the infringer, depending on the remedy sought and the urgency of the matter.

If urgent action is required, in certain circumstances UK courts can grant interim injunctions and search and seizure orders against the infringer. These orders can be applied for without notice to the infringer and granted within days. An interim injunction can be used to immediately stop sales where:

• the case is serious;
• damages will not be an adequate remedy; and
• the balance of convenience lies with the granting of the injunction.

A search order will allow the applicant to obtain access to the infringer’s premises to search for and seize goods. These orders are awarded only in limited circumstances. A successful applicant for an interim injunction will normally have to agree to pay damages to the defendant in case the applicant does not succeed at final trial.

If the circumstances do not warrant urgent action, then following pre-action correspondence the trademark owner may start proceedings in a UK court.

Remedies available at the final court hearing on infringement are:

• permanent injunctions against future infringement;
• orders for the infringer to pay damages or an account of profits to the trademark owner;
• orders for the infringer to deliver up or destroy the infringing goods; and
• costs awards in favour of the trademark owner.

Anti-counterfeiting online

Counterfeit goods are increasingly sold and distributed online. It is no longer just auction sites and online marketplaces where counterfeits are found, as social media platforms are considered to have now overtaken the use of these.

Counterfeit goods sales have also moved into hidden closed groups on platforms such as Facebook, making them harder to detect.

Online marketplaces, auction sites and social media platforms all have procedures to take down infringing content and listings of counterfeit goods. However, the efficiency of these procedures and scope of what content can be removed vary between sites.

The UK government recognises the challenge that online counterfeiting represents today. Various national agencies are dedicated to tackling the issue and assisting rights holders in enforcement against counterfeiters. These agencies work together and collaborate with international anti-counterfeiting initiatives to increase effectiveness and ensure sharing of intelligence.

Nominet, the ‘.uk’, ‘.cymru’ and ‘.wales’ domain registry, offers a domain name dispute resolution service (DRS) that rights holders can use to take down domain names used in relation to online IP infringment. To use the DRS, rights holders must submit a complaint backed up with evidence and pay a fee. The complaint procedure will then enter a mediation phase to try to settle the dispute between the complainant and respondent. Where this is not possible, an independent expert will decide the case and, if appropriate, cancel the domain name or transfer it to the complainant.

Nominet will also suspend domain names involved in online IP infringement in response to requests from PIPCU.

The work of PIPCU has a focus on stopping online counterfeit trading. PIPCU can bring prosecutions and have assets seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

In April 2017 PIPCU launched Operation Ashiko, a joint initiative with the International Anti-counterfeiting Coalition Rogueblock programme, which works to suspend ‘.uk’ domains being used to commit IP crime.

Internet service providers (ISPs) can, through the courts, be made subject to a blocking order available under Section 97 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, whereby ISPs are ordered to block websites known to host infringing content.

The National e-Crime Team is the section of National Trading Standards focused on investigating online crime, including counterfeiting and IP crime. Operation Jasper is a major enforcement operation run by the National e-Crime Team with the National Markets Group targeting those using social media to commit IP crime. The operation has resulted in the seizure of counterfeit goods and takedown of infringing website listings.

Preventive measures/strategies

Several UK government agencies operate initiatives aimed at tackling counterfeiting and infringement. In addition to those discussed above, others to note include the following:

• The Anti-Counterfeiting Group (ACG) works with brands and their representatives, government bodies and enforcement agencies to improve intelligence sharing and engagement with anti-counterfeiting efforts. ACG members receive access to guidance on anti-counterfeiting.
• The National Markets Group, and its Real Deal campaign, is a cross-sector initiative of Trading Standards, police, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) and organisations representing rights holders and industries to tackle the trade in counterfeits at physical markets and increase consumer awareness and trust.
• The UKIPO’s Intelligence Hub coordinates intelligence into counterfeiting and piracy activity received from enforcement agencies and rights holders in order to disrupt the supply chain and trade of counterfeits.
• Trading Standards operates the Buy With Confidence scheme, which offers reassurances to consumers as to the legitimacy of traders and quality of goods and services being provided.

It is important that brands engage with and assist enforcement agencies, as many can in appropriate cases prosecute counterfeiters on behalf of rights holders.

Brands also need to be proactive and use the channels open to them which are made available by these initiatives to take action against counterfeiting.

Rights holders should ensure that they are well placed to receive intelligence of counterfeiting activity. Several private companies offer tools to monitor infringing content online, registration of domain names containing trademarks and third-party use of brand names on the Internet. Reverse WHOIS searches can be used to identify patterns of behaviour by counterfeiters.

An AFA by Customs and use of the Enforcement Database will ensure that as many shipments of counterfeits are stopped by Customs as possible and provide valuable intelligence.

It is helpful for rights holders to document any intelligence received regarding counterfeiting of their brands. Over time, this will:

• build a picture of the physical routes that counterfeiters use to bring fake goods into the United Kingdom and the online spaces used for sales;
• inform brands of the tell-tale signs of counterfeit goods;
• create awareness of trends in the types of goods that counterfeiters are copying; and
• help to detect repeat offenders.

Compiling guidance as to how to distinguish a brand’s genuine goods from counterfeits is valuable to Customs and other enforcement agencies.

Consumer education and awareness are also important. Providing simple channels for consumers to alert brands to possible counterfeit sales is useful. Anti-counterfeiting security features that consumers know to look out for and can verify (eg, holographic labels) are available from some companies.

However, rights holders should be wary of how widely they distribute guidance identifying when their goods have been counterfeited. Detailed guidance should be restricted to Customs and enforcement agencies; in the wrong hands, too much information on how to spot a fake can assist counterfeiters.

Risk Mitigation for Counterfeit Electronic Parts

https://www.qualitymag.com/articles/94672-risk-mitigation-for-counterfeit-electronic-parts?

IEC Electronics Analysis and Testing Laboratory once again received ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accreditation.
The scope of the ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accreditation includes several SAE AS6171 test methods for suspect/counterfeit electrical, electronic and electromechanical (EEE) parts. According to the company, IEC is the first and only electronic manufacturing services (EMS) provider with an on-site testing laboratory to receive this accreditation with the addition of SAE AS6171 test methods. The ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accreditation is the internationally accepted specification of general requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. The SAE AS6171 test methods were developed specifically for laboratories for the detection and avoidance of suspect/counterfeit parts. The company also asserts that, currently, SAE AS6171 is the only standard that provides uniform requirements, practices, and test methods, making it more stringent than other counterfeit avoidance protocols.

What is SAE AS6171?
This SAE Aerospace Standard standardizes inspection and test procedures, workmanship criteria, and minimum training and certification requirements to detect suspect/counterfeit electrical, electronic, and electromechanical (EEE) parts. The requirements of this document apply once a decision is made to use parts with unknown chain of custody that do not have pedigree back to the original component manufacturer, or have been acquired from a broker or independent distributor, or when there are other known risk elements that result in the user to have concerns about potential counterfeit parts. The tests specified by this standard may also detect occurrences of malicious tampering, although the current version of this standard is not designed specifically for this purpose. This standard ensures consistency across the supply chain for test techniques and requirements based on assessed risk associated with the application, component, supplier, and other relevant risk factors. The requirements of this document supplement the requirements of a higher level quality standard (e.g., AS9100, AS9003, AS9120, ISO 9001) and other quality management system documents. They are not intended to stand alone, supersede, or cancel requirements found in other quality management system documents, or requirements imposed by contracting authorities.

This standard should be utilized when parts are not available from sources with known traceability to the original component manufacturer (OCM), original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for electromechanical parts, or authorized manufacturer. The requirements of this document specify testing based on acceptable levels of risk for a program or customer, to identify anomalies or performance issues that may indicate suspect counterfeit and counterfeit activity. No amount of testing can confirm an item as authentic; this would require that there be a known, unbroken chain of custody to the OCM/OEM or authorized manufacturer. This standard does not apply to parts obtained directly from a trustworthy authorized supplier with traceability to the OCM/OEM or authorized manufacturer.
Why SAE AS6171?
Counterfeit electronic components have caused many challenges in the electronics industry, especially when dealing with parts supply chain obsolescence management. One method of addressing the problem has been the creation of industry standards to try and deal with it. Mark Northrup, vice president of technology for IEC Electronics Corp., emphasizes, “There are so many counterfeit avoidance documents now that it is getting hard to keep track of all of them.”

SAE, through their G19 committee, has recently released the new SAE AS6171, the bookshelf of counterfeit avoidance standards. A general overview of all of SAE G19 committee standards, and related documents, always helps those unfamiliar to make sense of it all. It all begins with an end customer, the government or private entity, placing requirements on their subcontractor to have a counterfeit risk mitigation testing plan in place. The SAE G19 committee has completed their group of counterfeit avoidance standards that take this requirement from the original contractor through the company purchasing the electronics components from the open market. OEMs that are concerned with, or are required to mitigate the risk of suspect counterfeit electronics components, can adopt and become certified to SAE AS5553, which will guide them on methods to avoid and detect suspect counterfeit electronics components. A sister standard, SAE AS6081 (QTSL), was created for independent distributors to comply with an SAE AS5553 compliant manufacturer’s requirements, thus creating complementary standards. The SAE AS6171, which is now published, provides the detailed risk evaluation instructions, as well as more detailed instructions on how to test suspect counterfeit electronic components. The ISO/IEC 17025 standard is used for accrediting test facilities, such as those performing the tests prescribed in SAE AS6171. An accreditation confirms that the test laboratory and their staff have the proper equipment and training to be able to perform specific tests. SAE AS6081 (Revision A, which the SAE G19 committee is working on finalizing) points to the now released SAE AS6171 for the required product verification tests, referred to as ‘slash sheets’, as opposed to the current procedures within SAE AS6081, which points to an embedded lot sampling plan. For example, an independent distributor will now partner with a testing laboratory that is 17025 accredited to perform the various tests required by AS6081-A.

Lori LeRoy, principal at Global IC Trading Group Inc., which is a QTSL approved company and is compliant to the existing AS6081 requirements, shared her thoughts on the pending new release of AS6081:

“Until the final release, I can only speculate on the requirements of the published document. However, the section of AS6081-A that addresses verification of product will either require testing per AS6171, or provide the organization more flexibility for which standard they use to conduct the required inspection/testing steps. If AS6171 is required, ISO 17025 accreditation will also be required. This will force independent distributors that have already made the investment in equipment and training to either obtain ISO 17025 accreditation for EACH required test, or to partner with a test facility with 17025 accreditation, such as IEC, to perform the required tests on their behalf. Currently Global IC Trading is ISO 9001, AS9120, ANSI /ESD S20.20, CCAP Certified and a DLA QTSL. I concur with Mark Northrup that all the various standards, certifications and accreditations can be confusing. It is also very costly and time consuming, and as a small business one challenge we face is balancing the costs associated with certifications and accreditations along with the requirements of customers and government contractors. We need to ensure there is a return on investment and a correlation with increased revenue.”

The October 2016 ‘Source of Electronic Parts’ DFAR 252.246.7008 states:

“Contractor-approved supplier” means a supplier that does not have a contractual agreement with the original component manufacturer for a transaction, but has been identified as trustworthy by a contractor or subcontractor.

The term ‘trusted supplier’ was introduced in 2012 NDAA, Section 818 on April 10, 2012 and the industry was optimistic that a clear definition and requirement flow down would be established to become a ‘trusted supplier’. Six years later there is still no clear definition of trusted supplier or ‘trustworthy,’ and no clear pathway to become a trusted supplier. Today there are so many more standards, certifications and accreditations to consider, making it more challenging to understand what is actually necessary. The goal for all of us is to reduce the risk of counterfeit product entering the supply chain. Certifications, accreditations and a solid education in counterfeit prevention will reduce this risk, but will not eliminate it. Another suspect counterfeit electronic component standard that has been added to the mix is the SAE AS6496, which was created for authorized distribution, and primarily utilized for the return of product from their customers. The SAE’s G19 committee has been working very hard to create all of these needed documents.
ISO/IEC 17025
ISO/IEC 17025:2005 specifies the general requirements for the competence to carry out tests and/or calibrations, including sampling. It covers testing and calibration performed using standard methods, non-standard methods, and laboratory-developed methods. It is applicable to all organizations performing tests and/or calibrations. These include, for example, first-, second- and third-party laboratories, and laboratories where testing and/or calibration forms part of inspection and product certification. ISO/IEC 17025:2005 is applicable to all laboratories regardless of the number of personnel or the extent of the scope of testing and/or calibration activities. When a laboratory does not undertake one or more of the activities covered by ISO/IEC 17025:2005, such as sampling and the design/development of new methods, the requirements of those clauses do not apply. ISO/IEC 17025:2005 is for use by laboratories in developing their management system for quality, administrative and technical operations. Laboratory customers, regulatory authorities and accreditation bodies may also use it in confirming or recognizing the competence of laboratories. ISO/IEC 17025:2005 is not intended to be used as the basis for certification of laboratories. Compliance with regulatory and safety requirements on the operation of laboratories is not covered by ISO/IEC 17025:2005. Looking forward, there is a joint effort between SAE sub-committee G-19 Counterfeit Electronic Parts Committee and the accreditation bodies (ANAB, A2LA) to develop a standard, AS6810 “Requirements for Accreditation of Test Laboratories Performing Detection of Suspect/Counterfeit EEE Parts in Accordance with AS6171 General Requirements and the Associated Test Methods.” Within this standard there is clear definition as to the expectations of the end users and laboratories that seek accreditation to conduct the AS6171 tests. The standard will emphasize the technical competence of the laboratory personnel as well any reporting requirements. This standard will be used in conjunction with ISO 17025 when laboratories seek accreditation with the AS6171 test methods within their scope of accreditation. It is anticipated that this standard will be in active in 2019.

Customer Solutions
IEC Electronics is an EMS provider that employs a team of experts who help to minimize the supply chain risk for its customers by developing custom risk mitigation test plans, performing in-house testing, and seamlessly integrating the testing into its manufacturing environment. IEC Electronics Analysis and Testing Laboratory (IATL) on-site laboratories use these advanced methodologies as requested by customers to perform sophisticated manufacturing process development and state of the art testing for components, printed circuit board assemblies, cables, and system assemblies. IEC electronics is the only EMS that has an on-site ISO 17025 AS6171 Accredited and is a DLA QTSL approved testing lab that offers the full spectrum of DPA testing per military standards. Whether it is conducting failure analysis, material evaluations, or exhaustive tests like destructive or nondestructive physical analysis IEC can provide customers a suspect counterfeit test mitigation methodology solution.

ANAB
Upon determining its scope of accreditation as its next critical step, IEC Electronics contacted ANAB’s Roger Muse for the ISO/IEC 17025 path to the SAE AS6171 accreditation.The ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board is one of the largest accreditation bodies in the United States. ANAB is a nonprofit, non-government accreditation body which plays an important role in ensuring the safety and quality of goods and services and in protecting the environment. ANAB accredits certification bodies, calibration and testing labs, forensic science service providers, inspection bodies, reference material producers, and proficiency test providers. ANAB conducts audits to make sure clients follow international standards and are competent to do their work. The work that it does helps facilitate international trade and eliminates the expense of redundant audits and tests.

The G19 Committee designated ANAB as one of the accreditation bodies required for registered testing laboratories (RTL) for the SAE AS6171 accreditation. ANAB has a 97% customer retention rate and is highly regarded in the accreditation community. After undergoing an accreditation assessment, IEC Electronics Analysis and Testing Laboratory recognized ANAB assessor Steve Dale for his skills and knowledge as well ashis ability to engage in a courteous and meaningful manner.

How Best to Mitigate Suspect Counterfeit Electronics
One of the challenges facing the electronics industry has been how best to mitigate suspect counterfeit electronic components from entering supply chain product reliability. “Routinely, IEC Electronics Analysis and Testing Laboratory is asked by customers about suspect counterfeit electronics components risk mitigation testing methodologies,” said Northrup. The common testing methods discussed are IDEA, CCAP, QTSL (SAE AS 6081), SAE AS6171, and DLA per military standards (e.g., 202, 750, 883, and 1580). The company also mentioned many customers are confused about interpreting accreditation, certification, and suitability terminologies associated with each of these testing methods. “Each time the customer asks, we discuss testing per each one these methods requested, differences between each, and we avoid answering which one is the best. The recent evolution of the SAE AS6171 from the G19 Committee Members is another path for customers to select. Now when a customer contacts us we always convey that no amount of testing yields ‘zero risk.’”

DFARS 252.246.7008 Guidance Document
The recent DoD issued DFARS 252.246.7008 communicates new guidance on how parts can be procured regarding liability and safe harbor for government contractors and their supply chain. The three categories defined are:

Category 1: Original Equipment Manufacturer which is the preferred supplier

Category 2: Contractor Approved Supplier (CAS)

Category 3: Appropriate Inspection Test & Authentication (IT&A)

But DFAR 252.246.7008 falls short by not specifying which of the testing methods via IDEA, CCAP, QTSL (SAE AS 6081), SAE AS6171, or DLA per military standards (e.g., 202, 750, 883, and 1580) is preferred.

ANAB

(414) 501-5455

IEC Electronics Analysis and Testing Laboratory (IATL)

Albuquerque, NM

www.iec-electronics.com

The Concentration of Semiconductor Market Share

https://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=40&doc_id=1333179

The top five chipmakers accounted for 43 percent of all semiconductor sales last year, continuing a trend of market share concentration that began at least a decade ago. What's going on here?

It should come as little surprise that with all of the consolidation that has taken place in the semiconductor industry in recent years, the industry's market share is now more heavily concentrated in the hands of a few.  

According to a new report by market research firm IC Insights, the world's top five semiconductor suppliers accounted for roughly 43 percent of total chip sales in 2017, an increase of 10 percent from a decade earlier. According to the firm, the top five chip vendors last year — excluding foundries — were, in order: Samsung, Intel, SK Hynix, Micron and Broadcom.

As the heavy concentration of memory chip vendors among the top five illustrates, beyond consolidation, the amazing run of memory last year also contributed to the trend of more market share being concentrated in fewer hands. Samsung, Hynix and Micron also saw sales increases of more than 50 percent last year as the DRAM and NAND flash memory markets grew by 77 percent and 47 percent, respectively.

The memory boom will eventually end, and most market watchers expect much more moderate growth in memories this year. But IC Insights believes the continuing trend of consolidation will raise the market shares of the leading chip vendors to even higher levels.

The market share trend and the wave of mega-consolidation may may in fact both be byproducts of the same thing: the bifurcation between the haves and have-nots in the semiconductor industry.

Rob Lineback, a senior research analyst at IC Insights, told EE Times that the increase in market share among the largest chip suppliers can also be attributed to "big companies having deeper pockets and the financial resources to expand and grow as technology becomes more expensive and in areas that might be difficult for mid-sized and smaller chip companies to compete over the long haul."  

According to Lineback, the market share concentration is the reversal of a trend that began in the 1980s, when the birth of the fabless-foundry model led to an increase in the number of small- and mid-sized chip firms, and a throwback to the early-industry days of the 1970s, when the top five to 10 chip makers held most of the market because they were large, vertically integrated electronics companies.

"We believe semiconductor market share became spread over more chip companies after the mid-1980s due to the success of the fabless movement and then about 20 years later we began seeing consolidation and gains by the larger companies because of the high cost of competing in many market segments and the uptick in M&A during the decade," Lineback said.  

— Dylan McGrath is the editor-in-chief of EE Times.

Bain, SK Hynix group ups bid for Toshiba chip unit to $22 billion: sources

TOKYO (Reuters) - A group including Bain Capital and South Korea’s SK Hynix (000660.KS) has raised its offer for Toshiba Corp’s (6502.T) chip business to 2.4 trillion yen ($22.3 billion) including a 200 billion yen investment in infrastructure, sources familiar with the matter said.

The offer by the consortium, which is led by the U.S. private equity group and the South Korean chipmaker as well as Japanese state-backed investors, was higher than an initial offer of around 1.94 trillion yen, according to the sources who requested anonymity because the talks were confidential.

Bain and SK Hynix representatives were not immediately available for comment, while Toshiba declined to comment on details of the deal negotiations. 

The move comes after sources said Western Digital Corp (WDC.O), which was part of a competing group in final-stage talks with Toshiba, had revised its offer.

The sources said the U.S. company would take a step back from the initial financing consortium to address Toshiba’s concerns that a Western Digital stake could lead to prolonged anti-trust reviews.

It was unclear what its latest offer was, but sources previously said it was offering around 1.9 trillion yen.

Toshiba is desperate to sell the unit and cover billions of liabilities at its U.S. nuclear unit Westinghouse. Last week it said it was considering three competing offers including one led by Taiwan’s Hon Hai (2317.TW), also known as Foxconn.

All three bidder groups have roped in Apple Inc (AAPL.O) to bolster their offers, sources have said.

Under their latest offer, Bain and SK Hynix offered to provide a combined total of around 567.5 billion yen, while Apple Inc would provide 335 billion yen, according to sources. Toshiba would keep 250 billion yen in the business, they said.

U.S. technology firms and other Japanese companies were also expected to provide funding, while major banks were expected to provide a total of around 600 billion yen in funds, the sources said.

Bain would have 49.9 percent of initial voting rights in the memory chip business, while Toshiba would have 40 percent and Japanese firms would have 10.1 percent, the sources said.

Toshiba’s board is due to meet on Wednesday to consider the offers, sources said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting/bain-sk-hynix-group-ups-bid-for-toshiba-chip-unit-to-22-billion-sources-idUSKCN1BK06B

Funding Boost for U.K. Chip Firm Aiming at Amazon, Apple Voice-Control Market

Infineon Technologies AG bought a stake in U.K. audio specialist Xmos Ltd. as the German chipmaker seeks to gain from rapidly growing demand for voice-controlled devices like Amazon.com Inc.’s Echo assistant and the Google Home speaker.
Infineon led a $15 million funding round in Bristol-based Xmos, which develops sophisticated voice processors and algorithms. Infineon wants to pair those with its own microphones and gesture-tracking products to improve the interaction with smart home gadgets by, for instance, better filtering out background noise. The technology is aimed at potential customers such as Amazon, Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., said Andreas Urschitz, who heads Infineon’s power management and multimarket division.
The market for voice-controlled devices “is a strategic growth area for Infineon,” Urschitz said in a phone interview. “We can jointly bring the user experience for voice control to an entirely new level.”

The market is promising. Shipments of intelligent home speakers surged almost seven-fold year-over-year to 4.2 million units in the fourth quarter, according to consultant Strategy Analytics. Spending on smart-home related hardware, services and installation fees will reach $155 billion by 2022, up from almost $90 billion this year, with devices accounting for about half of that, the consulting firm estimates.
And it’s not just the Amazon Echo, Google Home, or Apple’s yet-to-be released HomePod that will drive demand for these chips. Infineon and Xmos expect voice control to increasingly replace touch technology in household devices such as TVs, thermostats and robot vacuums, partly because the user experience will improve and chips get smaller and cheaper.
Chips are even set to make their way into furniture -- think voice-controlled beds, Xmos Chief Executive Officer Mark Lippett said. To be successful, the chips need to be "the most economical,” he said.
Infineon already sells or is working on sensors that let devices to listen, see, smell, and feel temperature or pressure, and it expects the partnership with Xmos to speed up the development of its chip designs, Urschitz said. Infineon didn’t disclose the size of its Xmos stake, calling it a strategic minority investment.
“We want to jointly advance communication between a person and a machine to a point where it resembles more and more like two people interacting,” Urschitz said.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-07/infineon-eyes-amazon-apple-voice-control-market-with-xmos-stake