The IEEE’s spectacularly misguided 2015 revisions to its IP policy continues to disappoint (I addressed them a number of times previously).

There is something about standard essential patents that encourages subterfuge by implementers.

Patent litigation, the Sport of Kings, does not come cheap, especially when the litigation transmogrifies into a multi-jurisdictional slugfest.

I am very pleased to be participating in the upcoming webinar hosted by IPWatchdog and IPLytics on Tuesday March 9 at Noon Eastern Time.

In the highly contentious world of SEP licensing, one of the biggest debates in recent years has been between advocates of compulsory “access to all” and the existing “license to all” Regimes.

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”).