I find it fascinating that lawyers and other lobbyists involved with SEPs get so worked up in their policy preferences that they start to have blinders that automatically insert their preferences into texts where those preferences are no where to be seen.

Earlier this month the U.S. Department of Justice issued an updated Business Review Letter (BRL) for the IEEE patent policy.

This week the Department of Justice issued a business review letter (BRL) relating to Avanci’s proposed 5G licensing platform for patents declared as potentially essential owned by its globally diverse thirty eight licensors.

It seems that Unified Patent’s year plus PR campaign (see) against HEVC assets in the US has run out of steam. Tags: Standard essential patents; FRAND; IPR;;

As I have documented elsewhere, Apple, for quite a long time has been engaged in a sophisticated long-term quest to devalue (p7) standard essential patents (“Essential Patents”).

Previously we discussed a Unified Patents’ article, the “FRAND SCAM” fails to address many key points.

Previously we addressed some of the key omissions in Unified Patents’ article “FRAND SCAM.”

Last month, Unified Patents, also known as a PTAB reverse troll, launched its new service called Unified Consulting.

There is no doubt that the number of patents declared as potentially essential to technical standards is not an indication of essentiality; its only purpose is to make those declared patents accessible on FRAND terms should they ever become essential.

The remedies a court can impose on behalf of a standard-essential patent owner whose Essential Patents are infringed, and even the remedies an Essential Patents owner requests became an especially contentious question between 2013-2015.