{"id":20979,"date":"2015-02-07T23:21:53","date_gmt":"2015-02-07T17:51:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/one\/sinapse\/?p=20979"},"modified":"2025-05-30T12:59:20","modified_gmt":"2025-05-30T07:29:20","slug":"ieee-ip-policy-standard-essential-patents-amendment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/ieee-ip-policy-standard-essential-patents-amendment\/","title":{"rendered":"IEEE amends it\u2019s IP policy related to Standard Essential Patents"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) Standards Association (IEEE-SA) has proposed a change to it\u2019s IP (Intellectual Property) policy. The revised policy can be viewed <a href=\"http:\/\/grouper.ieee.org\/groups\/pp-dialog\/drafts_comments\/SBBylaws_100614_redline_current.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">here<\/a>. The new policy comprises revisions to the provisions related to commitments from holders of Standards Essential Patents. The revised policy states that the patent holders have to make licenses for Standards Essential Patents available to other parties under Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) terms.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The biggest change with respect to the updated policy is that the patent holder should not seek or enforce an injunction against an entity that implements a product with the Standards Essential Patent(s) of the patent holder, only on the implementing entity failing to agree terms or participate or comply in adjudication proceedings related to licensing the terms of an agreement between the patent holder and the implementing entity.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The update also defines what is a \u2018reasonable term\u2019. Previously, the term \u2018reasonable term\u2019 was not defined and it was up to to the patent holder and implementing party to decide and agree upon a \u2018reasonable term\u2019. Quoting from the policy, <em>\u201cReasonable Rate\u201d shall mean appropriate compensation to the patent holder for the practice of an Essential Patent Claim excluding the value, if any, resulting from the inclusion of that Essential Patent Claim\u2019s technology in the IEEE Standard<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This is a welcome move, as it would potentially reduce the litigations in the telecommunication industry (which has potentially been going out of hand). This will force potential litigators to attempt to reach an agreement with each other, before the patent holder can approach the courts to seek an injunction against the implementing party (wherein the patent holder requests the Court to prevent the implementing party from selling product(s) which potentially infringe on the Standards Essential Patent(s) held by the patent holder).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">This updated policy has received the approval from the US Department of Justice (DOJ), as per this <a href=\"http:\/\/www.justice.gov\/atr\/public\/busreview\/311470.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">communiqu\u00e9<\/a> from the DOJ.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Image source: <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ieee.org\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">IEEE<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>IEEE has amended its IP policy for Standard Essential Patents, requiring RAND licensing and setting limits on injunctions. The clarified definition of reasonable terms is expected to reduce litigation and encourage fair negotiations in the telecommunications industry.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":18,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,22,14],"tags":[3778,147,127,158,6990,1087,6991,6992],"class_list":["post-20979","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-intellectual-property","category-ip-commercialization-licensing","category-patents","tag-ieee","tag-intellectual-property-policy","tag-patent-licensing","tag-patent-litigation","tag-rand-terms","tag-standard-essential-patents","tag-telecommunication-law","tag-us-department-of-justice"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20979","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20979"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20979\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":132723,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20979\/revisions\/132723"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20979"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20979"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20979"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}