Holders of standard-essential patents(SEPs)generally commit to offer licenses on fair,reasonable and non-discriminatory(FRAND)terms,based on the patent policy of the individual standard-setting organization(SSO).Patent implementers could be suppliers of parts or components for products that comply with the standard,or they could be manufacturers of larger systems or end products.Whether SEP holder has the obligation to license patent implementers at any level upon request is an important question in the age of the Internet of Things.In individual cases,courts need to interpret the patent policy of SSO,and may also consider the actual needs of the patent implementer,SEP holder's management costs,and trading practice in the relevant industry,and then render a reasonable interpretation of the extent of SEP holder's obligation to license under the specific SSO's patent policy.In principle,if SSO does not include an express statement regarding the level of licensing,SEP holders may choose how and where to offer licenses.If SEP holders take the initiative to assert their rights against upstream manufacturers,they are obliged to offer licenses to such manufacturers.Patent pools,as licensing options,are free to choose the level of patent licensing within the particular scope of contractual authority granted,so long as the participating patent holders'independent licensing of third parties is not affected.SEP holder's decision to offer end-use licenses will not materially affect the competition in the market of upstream components or end-products,so there is no need for direct intervention pursuant to anti-trust law.The above interpretations can provide licensing of patents covering technical standards,and ensure that the SEP holders receive reasonable returns,aligning with the overall interests of society.
standard-essential patentslevel of licensingFRAND statementpatent poolanti-trust
NETL
NSTL
万方数据
