SEP Essentials

2026 already has been a whirlwind of global activity, including in the world of standards and standard essential patents (SEPs).  The United States has announced its intent “to win the global race for 6G” and obtain “scientific and technological global dominance” ( Global Dominance – The U.S.A.’s Views on Standards and SEPs ). China has further cemented its status as the only country in the world with a well-formulated and consistent strategy and vision around standards and S

On 27 April 2023, the European Commission published its proposal for the Regulation of Standard Essential Patents (“SEP Proposal”).  The SEP Proposal was carefully considered and vetted through the European Union’s ordinary legislative procedures.  Stakeholders and the public were given the opportunity to provide written input and there were more than 70 submissions from businesses, academics and other experts.  It was also reviewed, and comments and suggestions made, by seve

The European Telecommunications Standards Institute (“ETSI”) requires each SEP owner to agree to give an “irrevocable undertaking in writing that it is prepared to grant irrevocable licences on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms and conditions . . .”  If a SEP owner refuses, the committee, in consultation with the ETSI Secretariat, is empowered to stop work on the applicable section of the standard. [1]   Similarly, in the Institute of Electrical and Elec

Way back in the early days of this blog, I wrote an article about the EU’s complaint in the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) against China ( First Pop Quiz Revisited - The EU Complaint Against China ).  The EU complaint alleged that China violated the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights “TRIPS” agreement primarily through Chinese courts’ use of anti-suit injunctions.  I wanted to give an update on that case:  it appears that the EU has lost. Although a publi

I wanted to revisit the statements made by Qualcomm and Nokia representatives at the Global Standards Leadership Conference about aggregate cellular license amounts.  See my post Global Standards Leadership Conference - Part 3 ( sepessentials.com )  for additional details on what was said during the panel.  To set the stage, according to a report put out last year by IPLytics, one of the hosts of the conference, Qualcomm is ranked no. 2 (behind only Huawei) and Nokia no. 5 in

I have previously posted in depth on the EU’s “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on standard essential patents and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1001” (“Proposal”) and recently gave an update on the passage by the EC’s Legal Affairs Committee (“JURI”) of a modified version of the Proposal. [1]   I wanted to take a deeper dive into the modifications to the Proposal (“MP”) considered by JURI. [2] I’ll start by focusing on those aspects of

I have previously posted in depth on the EU’s “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on standard essential patents and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1001” (“Proposal”). [1]  I am pleased to report that, on Wednesday (23/1/24 since we’re being European), the EC’s Legal Affairs Committee (“JURI”) adopted a modified version of the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on standard essential patents and amending

There was a point to the first pop quiz. Last year, the European Union filed a complaint in the World Trade Organization against China related to SEP litigation. In its First Written Submission (filed on June 8, 2023), the EU argues that the Chinese courts’ global FRAND setting and anti-suit injunctions violate the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights “TRIPS” agreement. [1] The EU brief argues that the Chinese courts’ decisions to set global FRAND rates and

Here are the answers to the quiz. The first set of cases was the dispute between Microsoft and Motorola, the second the IPCom litigation with Lenovo and the third the Conversant/Huawei dispute. The jurisdictions and why they are outliers are as follows. Jurisdiction 1 – the United States . Patent damages in the United States, including for SEPs, usually are much higher than anywhere else in the world. The US is also a very large market for consumer based standardized prod

Historically, when licensing negotiations fail, large SEP holders file patent infringement lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions against a single implementer. Sometimes implementers file breach of contract (for breach of the FRAND commitment) or declaratory judgement actions against SEP holders when negotiations break down. Here is the story of three such disputes. Each of the jurisdictions listed below is an outlier in its own way. Can you name each of the jurisdictions?

Title VI of the Proposal establishes the Center as an avenue for making (potentially global) FRAND determinations. As the Proposal recognizes, we currently have at least two different jurisdictions (the U.K. and China), each of which claim to have the authority to set global FRAND rates and determine world-wide FRAND licenses. You have to ask yourself, do we need yet another forum that purports to have the authority to set global FRAND rates. The answer is yes, maybe, in so

The EU Strategy on Standardisation was updated last year “to deliver on the twin green and digital transition and support the resilience of the single market.”[1] The Strategy is mostly forward looking and includes plans for a review of “existing standards, to identify needs for revisions or development of new standards to meet the objectives of the European Green Deal and Europe’s Digital Decade and support the resilience of the single market” and to develop new standards to

The European Commission’s “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on standard essential patents and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1001” (“Proposal”) is an attempt to bring some sanity to what is now a fragmented, difficult, time consuming and expensive FRAND licensing system. In drafting my opening post, I took a walk down memory lane into the global SEP licensing disputes that surrounded the development of the third generation (3G) cellular