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

December 18, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a $20 million jury verdict in favor of a patentee and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the patentee did not own the asserted patents at the time it filed suit and therefore lacked standing.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 17, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision finding claims that had been subject to an ex parte reexamination unpatentable. As a threshold issue, the court held that IPR estoppel under 35 USC § 315(e)(1) does not apply to ongoing ex parte reexaminations. Accordingly, the Patent Office did not err in continuing the reexamination after issuing final written decisions in co-pending IPRs.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 15, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s demand for enhanced damages based on willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, explaining that neither a demand for damages under § 284 nor an accusation of willful infringement amount to a claim for relief that can be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for a writ of mandamus that challenged the PTO Director’s reliance on “settled expectations” to discretionarily deny two inter partes review (IPR) petitions. In so doing, the court explained that, while it was not deciding whether the Director’s use of “settled expectations” was correct, the petitioner’s arguments about what factors the Director may consider when deciding whether to institute an IPR or post-grant review (PGR) are not generally reviewable and did not provide sufficient basis for mandamus review here.

...

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.