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.

For my next trick, disappearing LOA Disclosures!

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.

Is this what awaits? Last year, I described the broad negative and anticompetitive consequences of the IEEE’s 2015 patent policy, and was pleased to see the U.S. Department of Justice’s important 2020 Business Review Letter to IEEE (“DOJ BRL”) cite to my empirical work (see FN 47).

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.

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.”