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

November 17,2025

The district of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s partial motion to dismiss pre-suit willful infringement from the litigation, finding instead that the allegations taken as a whole were sufficient to support pre-suit willfulness at the pleading stage. Specifically, the court found that the allegations as to the defendant’s involvement in a related foreign opposition proceeding and participation in the relevant industry were accompanied by detailed factual support that sufficiently pleaded willful infringement for the pre-suit period.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 14, 2025

The Ninth Circuit recently reversed a district court’s decision to strike a plaintiff’s trade secret claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) at the discovery stage. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit made clear that under the DTSA, whether a party defined their trade secret with sufficient particularity is a question of fact that generally does not lend itself to resolution in the absence of at least some discovery. This ruling contrasts with the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), which requires a party to define their trade secrets with reasonable particularity before commencing discovery.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a summary judgment ruling of invalidity, holding that the district court erred in applying preclusive effect to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s unpatentability findings regarding other claims in the same patent. In doing so, the Federal Circuit reiterated that issue preclusion does not apply where the prior factual determinations were made under a lower standard of proof.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 3, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently clarified the requirement for work disclosed in a reference to qualify as “by another” under pre-AIA Sections 102(a) and (e), holding that there must be complete inventive identity between the information disclosed in the asserted reference and the inventors named on the relevant patent. 

...

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.