USPTO and UKIPO Announce Collaboration Effort on Standard Essential Patent Policies

July 9, 2024

Reading Time : 2 min

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) have signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) that outlines a new framework for collaboration between the two offices on policies relating to Standard Essential Patents (SEPs).

SEPs are patents that have been declared by the patent owner as “essential” to practice a particular technical standard such as Wi-Fi, LTE, 5G, Bluetooth and HEVC. In order to have input on a standard, owners of SEPs are often required by the organization developing the standard to agree to license SEPs to licensees on Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms.

Unlike patents, which are limited in jurisdictional scope, standards are commonly implemented globally. In recent years, as increased interoperability and interconnectivity has become ubiquitous across all manner of technology, the patchwork nature of SEP policies and laws in countries around the world has grown increasingly more nuanced and complex. As such, this recent announcement of the U.S. and U.K. patent offices to work together to harmonize SEP policies has the potential to positively impact the broader SEP global policy landscape.

The USPTO has outlined certain key objectives of the agreement that aim to see the two patent offices:

  • Cooperate on activities to facilitate collaboration and exchange of information on policy matters concerning SEPs, to better ensure a balanced standards ecosystem.
  • Explore means to educate small and medium-sized enterprises seeking to implement or contribute to the development of technical interoperability standards on FRAND terms.
  • Examine ways of improving transparency in the FRAND licensing of technical interoperability standards.
  • Engage in outreach to stakeholders to raise awareness of issues related to SEPs.
  • Discuss means to incorporate additional jurisdictions into the USPTO’s and the UKIPO’s activities concerning SEPs, including exploring a venue for such broader discussions.

The term of the MoU is five years, and it comes at a pivotal time for SEPs globally. For example, although SEP license negotiations commonly involve global patent portfolios, the parties to those negotiations often lack basic guidance as to what court (if any) has the authority to determine a global FRAND rate, as well as what country’s law applies to a given FRAND rate determination analysis.

Critically, the European Patent Office is presently working closely with lawmakers at the European Parliament on significantly streamlining many of these and similar issues, including mandatory SEP registrations, SEP essentiality checks, FRAND determinations and potential alternative forms of dispute resolution, among others. All of these issues are highly relevant to parties with U.S. and/or U.K. intellectual property interests. To that end, the specifically stated objectives of the U.S. and U.K. to bring other jurisdictions to the table has the potential to further harmonize key issues across the globe.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

January 17, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied a motion to dismiss a patent infringement complaint involving gene editing technology that sought relief under the Safe Harbor Provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act. Specifically, the court found the patentee’s complaint sufficiently alleged at least some uses of the claimed technology that, when taken as true, were not solely uses of a “patented invention” that were “reasonably related” to an FDA submission.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

January 17, 2025

The District of Arizona recently held that a plaintiff’s failure to mark patented products during the time period that marking was required barred it from recovering all pre-notice damages, including for a period of time when there was no obligation to mark.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

January 16, 2025

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) aims to provide expeditious decisions for its litigants. That means that there is a higher bar for obtaining extensions of time. As exemplified in BMW v. ITCiCo, the UPC’s reluctance to grant extensions can have serious consequences, including revocation of the patent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

January 15, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution of inter partes review of a patent directed to delivery of targeted television advertisements. The board rejected patent owner’s argument that a lack of particularity as to the asserted grounds justified denial under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a), holding that “simply including a significant amount of testimony and a number of supporting references is not, by itself, a reason to find that the particularity requirement is not met.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 2, 2024

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board determined that a reference could be used as prior art because patent owner failed to provide sufficient evidence that the prior art’s disclosure was invented by all four named inventors, and thus the same “inventive entity,” as the challenged claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 2, 2024

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board rejected a patent owner’s assertion that petitioner should have named a third party, which was a defendant in a related district court patent infringement litigation and a party to a joint defense agreement (JDA) with petitioner, as a real party-in-interest (RPI). Had the board ruled otherwise and found the third party to be an RPI, the petition would have been time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 27, 2024

A district court recently refused to exclude testimony regarding consumer surveys conducted by a design patent expert, holding instead that the consumer surveys may be probative of how an ordinary observer would view the designs at issue, and thus could assist the factfinder in determining design patent infringement under the ordinary observer test.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 5, 2024

The Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s fee award because the district court considered certain information that was not relevant to the question of whether plaintiff’s case was exceptional. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that only those “red flags” that related to the successful Section 101 defense, which served as the basis for the district court’s grant of summary judgment, could be used to show the case was fatally flawed.   

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.