Intellect-Partners

Categories
Mechanical

The Process Of Declaring A Standard Essential Patent (SEP)

Standards and SEPs, what are they?

A standard is a set of technological advances, norms, or protocols utilized in like manner by different manufacturers or service providers while designing specified methods or products. Standards are fundamental for the worldwide reception of innovations and processes. For instance, different telecom advances, for example, Bluetooth and Wi-Fi capabilities comparatively on phones made by various organizations. The organizations, groups, or bodies that define and set standards are known as Standard Setting Associations (SSOs). The Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) in the US, the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) in Europe and The Association of Radio Industries and Businesses (ARIB) in Japan are some examples of SSOs working in the telecom sector.

While explaining a standard, a few innovations or processes might exist that some innovator has proactively patented, and without utilizing these patents, executing the standard is incomprehensible. Those patents crucial for executing a standard and have been acknowledged by the concerned SSO are known as Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The role of SEPs is most critical in the field of telecommunications because with each new age, for example, 3G, 4G, and 5G, there are various standards defined by SSOs like ETSI. It is inordinately impossible to manufacture a telecommunication framework connected with the concerned standard without utilizing the advancements defined by SEPs.

Presently, organizations that make products that are per a standard need to have a permit of the relevant SEPs from the proprietors of the SEPs. The proprietors of the SEPs invest money, time, and different resources while inventing and defining their patented advances, and they ought to get reasonable royalties for their endeavors. Consequently, the SEPs are for the most part licensed on FRAND (Fair Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) terms. FRAND terms are an agreement between the SEPs holders and SSOs to give a SEP license to the standard implementers based on fair and reasonable conditions for both of the parties. FRAND is a voluntary agreement, and there is no implementing body to uphold the FRAND terms. If there is any conflict between the two parties on FRAND, the dispute can be put under the watchful eye of the concerned court, where the jury or judge will determine the issue.

Patent Designation as SEP

A patent is pronounced crucial for implementing a standard, ordinarily by the SSOs. While creating and defining a standard, the individuals from the SSO check for the potential patents which might be expected for the implementation of the standard as well as the patent proprietors pronounce to the concerned SSO that their protected innovation is fundamental to implementing the standard. After getting the rundown of such patents, the concerned SSO individuals check whether the unveiled patented innovation is utilized in the standard and further, assuming asked by the SSO’s higher authorities, an effort is made by the SSO members to track down alternative innovation solutions to find whether executing the standard without utilizing the corresponding patent. On the off chance that there is no other alternative, the patent is announced as essential for the specific standard, and the higher authorities of the SSO are informed about it.

License Granting According to the FRAND Terms

For the most part, in the wake of perceiving a patent to be fundamental for the standard implementation, the patent proprietor is requested by the concerned SSO, for example, ETSI to give an irreversible undertaking in a particular timeframe regarding its agreement to grant the license based on FRAND terms, however, the patent proprietor will undoubtedly give the license based on FRAND terms. If the patent proprietor doesn’t show interest in granting a license based on FRAND conditions, subsequent requests are made by the higher authorities of the SSO, for example, the Director-General on account of ETSI to get the license.

In any case, if the patent proprietor refuses to provide the license based on FRAND terms, the SSO decides whether the development of the concerned part of the standard ought to proceed or not. Notwithstanding, much of the time, the patent proprietors are the organizations that are members of the concerned SSO and play a part in developing the standard. These organizations ordinarily consent to give the license to their patented innovation based on FRAND terms. In many cases, the member organizations purposefully embed their patented innovations into various parts of the standard to profit from the FRAND terms’ royalties, which is an unethical activity.

Declaration of SEP

The SSOs by and large provide platforms on which the patent proprietors can declare assuming that they observe that a specific standard is utilizing their patented innovation. The patent holders need to give all the information concerning their patents utilized in the standard and the part of the standard that utilizes the concerning innovation. For instance, ETSI gives an “IPR Information and Licensing Declaration” platform. The declarants can open a submitter account on this platform and proclaim that their patented innovation is fundamental for executing a specific standard. The declarants can choose the specific part of the standard that is utilizing their innovation.

How to Find Declared SEPs

The proclaimed SEPs are generally revealed publicly by the concerned SSO. The information in regards to SEPs related to a specific standard/innovation and/or the SEPs connected with a specific assignee can be tracked down on the site of the concerned SSO.

For instance, ETSI gives an “ETSI IPR Online Database” as displayed in Fig. 3. The SEPs connected with a specific project, standard, as well as a declaring organization can be found by filling in the suitable details in the web-based data set of ETSI.

Conclusion

Standards play a significant part, particularly in telecom, to keep up with consistency in the work process of different advancements. With the approach of the new-gen, different new standards should be characterized. Frequently, these standards involve patented advances, without which implementing the standard is unthinkable. These patents are pronounced as SEPs by the SSOs. The proprietors of these patented innovations had invested a lot of effort while inventing these advances; consequently, they ought to be compensated reasonably. The most common way of setting standards, proclaiming SEPs, getting SEP licenses based on FRAND terms, and giving public info in regards to SEPs connected with standards is by and large controlled and implemented by SSOs.

Categories
Computer Science Electronics Others

Revitalization Partners Sues Google and YouTube for Patent Infringement

Arriving at an essential achievement in its four-year venture as the court-appointed receiver for pioneering digital information and advertising organization AudienceScience Inc., Seattle-based Revitalization Partners has recorded suit against Google LLC and YouTube LLC for infringing on three of the licenses held by the receivership and the previous organization’s estate.

Revitalization Partners, for AudienceScience, claims that both Google and YouTube infringe upon the innovations of AudienceScience by choosing and assigning which advertising messages are incorporated when a client requests a web page. The intellectual property litigation is trusted to be the first-ever that a state receiver-initiated. Revitalization Partners at first found the patents after AudienceScience stopped everyday organization operations in 2017.

AudienceScience invented and licensed a significant number of the fundamental advancements utilized across the digital advertising industry today. Among its developments: the industry’s first behavioral targeting product, empowering publishers all through the world to serve more significant advertising based on both user history and page context. This advancement started the empowerment of advertisers to purchase highly targeted digital media.

Revitalization Partners co-founder and principal Al Davis said his firm found approximately 32 AudienceScience patents in the wake of being delegated by the court to deal with the receivership cycle. Working with Pat Scanlon, head of RP’s advanced business practice, the firm started developing a methodology to adapt the worth of those proprietary techs to fulfill creditor obligations. The suit against Google and YouTube addresses the first of those legal actions.

Mr. Davis said, “As we did our due diligence, we quickly recognized how the patents were being infringed upon by two of the largest and most influential companies in the online world. Now that we’ve received the necessary approvals from the Washington State receivership court to pursue litigation, we are in a position to execute and potentially recover a significant amount of value for creditors using these and other patents.”

Revitalization Partners involved in Silicon Valley IP patent case lead counsel Robert Kramer of the Feinberg Day Kramer Alberti Lim Tonkovich and Belloli LLP firm to represent the firm in the case against Google and YouTube, alongside local counsel The Dacus Firm in Tyler, Texas.

Categories
Electronics

Nokia files multiple patent infringement cases against Oppo

Nokia has recorded different claims against Oppo for purportedly utilizing its protected tech on its products without a legitimate permitting arrangement between the organizations.

Nokia has purportedly recorded different claims against Chinese innovation major Oppo. The claims allege that the organization keeps on utilizing Nokia’s protected innovations for its products without a substantial permit arrangement.

The patent encroachment arguments by Nokia against Oppo have been documented in a few parts of Europe and Asia, including India, UK, France, and Germany. The claims assert that the encroachment includes a portion of Nokia’s standard-essential licenses (SEPs) and non-SEPs, similar to the UI and security highlights.

The distribution affirmed as of late that Nokia is suing Oppo over patent encroachment, following the end of a license arrangement between the two organizations that was endorsed back in November 2018.

The understanding permitted Oppo to utilize Nokia’s licensed advancements. It supposedly ended in June this year, with a renewal due post that. For reasons unknown, Oppo didn’t renew this agreement and kept on utilizing the protected advances on its products without it.

Nokia supposedly guarantees that Oppo’s proceeded practice violates its privileges by utilizing its licensed advancements for benefits. It hence seeks legal activity action Oppo in the greater part of its global business sectors. It likely seeks an arrangement like the previous one that necessary Oppo to pay around EUR 3 (~Rs 270) per telephone to Nokia for every one of the gadgets that utilized Nokia’s protected innovation.

Not all subtleties of the lawful activity have been unveiled as of now. Be that as it may, both the organizations have reacted to the cases. In a connection with NokiaMob, Nokia guaranteed that it was Oppo who dismissed Nokia’s “fair and reasonable” offers to renew the authorizing understanding and that it looks for litigation if all else fails.

In the meantime, Oppo portrays the claims by Nokia as surprising and faults it for “dishonoring” the patent authorizing under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. It further portrays prosecution as an outlandish consultation in the matter.

This isn’t the first occasion when that Nokia has recorded a patent encroachment claim against another firm. The Finnish tech major has authorized its licenses to a few firms throughout the long term and incidentally has been in a legitimate tussle to ensure them. The latest ones were with Lenovo and Daimler, the two of which have now been settled with classified arrangements between the companies.