Talk:Essential patent

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 27 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): B0lland1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Coined by ..
The expression "essential patent" dates at least back to 1995. See "Tension and Synergism Between Standards and Intellectual Property" OR Smoot - StandardView, 1995: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/shapiro/thicket.pdf --Edcolins 18:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Feel free to change.--Nowa 20:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Done... This does not mean I know where the term comes from.. --Edcolins 20:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks good.--Nowa 11:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Rand/Frand
I am not a patent lawyer... but could this not be merged into Reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing. If not then surely the difference should be spelt out in the body of the article. This article titled Standards-Essential Patents and FRAND Licensing seems to imply that the overlap is considerably, if not actually being the same. PeterEastern (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to keep them separate, since the concepts are different, although indeed related (in the sense that a RAND license probably only makes sense in relation to an essential patent). --Edcolins (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Corrections and Improvements
My name is Brandon and I work for Qualcomm, which is a major developer of essential patents in mobile phone standards and elsewhere. This page has some confusing and/or incorrect information about the basics of essential patents. For example, paragraph two says "If a standards organization fails to get licenses..." with a citation to a contributed article / op-ed in a niche publication. However, standards bodies do not get licenses for anyone. They create the standards, while essential patent owners themselves are responsible for securing licensing agreements with essential patent users. I don't want to get involved in the page in any way that could remotely be seen as influencing it unfairly, but I do wonder for example if it wouldn't be a big improvement to the page to borrow the United States Patent and Trademark Office's definition of essential patents [https://www.uspto.gov/subscription-center/2022/standard-essential-patent-policy-and-practices-we-want-hear-you#:~:text=Those%20patents%20%E2%80%94%20standard%20essential%20patents,society%20and%20across%20the%20globe. here], pursuant to Public_domain. Lcfbrandon (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I have removed the inaccurate sentence. Edcolins (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much ! I have a couple other suggested tweaks if you have a minute to take a look:


 * The second sentence is a bit convoluted. Language like "cover a standard" is strange and saying "often" seems a lot softer than what the source says ("normally"). Using the same citation, I suggest something like:
 * "Standards setting organizations (SSOs) normally require patent holders to agree to license any essential patents under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms before incorporating any of those patents into a standard."
 * The See Also section seems to be a list of controversies, rather than a list of routine, important related concepts. For example, "Patent Ambush" violates MOS:SEEALSO with such a long description, and the patent thicket page specifically says it "is associated with negative connotations." I think it should focus more on important concepts like: Reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing, Standardization, Standards organizations, and Technical standards.
 * Thanks again in advance for any feedback. Lcfbrandon (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. Regarding the first point, I have reworded the sentence while attempting to be as close as possible to the source. Regarding the second, the description of "patent ambush" in the "see also" section in now much shorter. Note that, per MOS:NOTSEEALSO, "[a]s a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body". Reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing, Standards organizations, and Technical standards are all in the article's body. --Edcolins (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

(Discussion moved from User talk:Edcolins) The Wikipedia entry on standard patents is very thin..

 * The following comment by Bgmitchener has been moved from User talk:Edcolins. And I have added line spaces for readability. --Edcolins (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, in full transparency, I am a communications adviser to IP Europe, an organization that represents companies and research organizations that own and/or implement standard-essential patents. I am also a former journalist and believe in objectivity and facts (see my profile).

I have noticed that the article on standard-essential patents is extremely thin, and was not linked to the (F)RAND article although these topics are very closely linked. I added the link.

The subject of standard-essential patents is in the (legal) news a lot these days because of a proposal by the European Commission to regulate SEPs, as well as ongoing regulatory reviews in the United Kingdom and United States.

While I could easily and would gladly help put some meat on the bones of the essential patents article, I want to avoid any appearance of bias in Wikipedia, to which I've contributed in the past and appreciate in my own work.

The biggest interested parties in this debate are patent owners such as Nokia, Ericsson, Qualcomm, Philips, Fraunhofer Institute, Panasonic, Dolby and others on the one hand, and large patent users (or "implementers") on the other. These include cell phone handset manufacturers such as Apple, Samsung and Microsoft, along with manufacturers of smart meters on the electronics side, and automakers on the other. Many of those who oppose standard-essential patents are represented in the lobby group Fair Standards Alliance: https://fair-standards.org/.

For starters, I have suggested below a short outline of the topic for an improved Wikipedia page together with some suggested sources including sources from all sides of the current regulatory debate in Europe.

Please let me know if you would welcome me drafting a more thorough but very very neutral article on essential patents.

Suggested outline and contents:

1. Definition and purpose --> https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/factsheet_-_standard_essential_patents_1.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgmitchener (talk • contribs) 17:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC) --> https://www.gov.uk/guidance/standard-essential-patents-seps-explained --> https://ipeurope.org/policy/protect-intellectual-property-rights-including-seps/what-is-a-standard-essential-patent/ --> Open standards vs. proprietary ("walled garden") standards : Open standard --> Ericsson video on the benefits of standards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTfP1ImLNR8 --> an IP Europe "explainer" intended to be a bit fun: https://ipeurope.org/blog/what-has-a-standard-essential-patent-done-for-me-lately-anyway/ --> An older Qualcomm article on the role of SEPs in connected cars: https://www.politico.eu/sponsored-content/the-technology-defining-connected-cars-and-how-it-will-change-our-lives/ --> Fair Standards Alliance page on SEPs and FRAND: https://fair-standards.org/key-principles/

2. FRAND licensing (the obligation of which is a condition of a patent being included in a technical standard) Patents which are included in a standard must, by contract, be licensed on FRAND terms and conditions to avoid anti-competitive discrimination: --> Reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing --> Nokia patent licensing page: https://www.nokia.com/licensing/patents/ --> Philips IP licensing page: https://www.philips.com/a-w/about/innovation/ips/ip-licensing.html --> Nokia video on FRAND licensing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxxczd1bAlo --> Ericsson video on patents and licensing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1_Kk7HERGo

3. Litigation --> European Court of Justice landmark Huawei vs. ZTE decision: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:62013CJ0170 --> above decision explained: https://caselaw.4ipcouncil.com/cjeu-decisions/huawei-v-zte --> Overview of case law post-EU Court of Justice Huawei-ZTE decisions: https://caselaw.4ipcouncil.com/guidance-national-courts

4. Patent pools --> Avanci: https://www.avanci.com/vehicle/4gvehicle/ --> Peer-reviewed paper on patent pools: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308596121001919 --> Analysis of patent pools: https://fair-standards.org/2019/11/06/patent-pools-and-licensing-platforms-in-sep-licensing-2/

5. Regulation --> Proposed European Commission draft regulation on SEPs: https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/publications/com2023232-proposal-regulation-standard-essential-patents_en --> All public reactions to the Commission proposal: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13109-Intellectual-property-new-framework-for-standard-essential-patents/feedback_en?p_id=32054345 --> A summary of independent comments on the Commission proposal: https://ipeurope.org/blog/live-blog-third-party-comments-on-the-european-commissions-seps-proposal/ --> IP Europe position paper on the Commission proposal: https://ipeurope.org/position-papers/fail-commission-proposal-on-standard-essential-patents-seps-would-not-deliver-on-its-objectives/ --> European Parliament background paper on SEPs: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/608854/IPOL_IDA(2019)608854_EN.pdf --> U.S. approach on SEPs: https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/department-justice-us-patent-and-trademark-office-and-national-institute --> Nokia/Ericsson joint article in Parliament magazine reacting to the European Commission's proposal: https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/sepchange-will-changes-to-patent-rules-stifle-european-innovation

END Bgmitchener (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you, @Bgmitchener. It seems to me that most of the sources you listed, if not all of them, are primary sources. However, according to our WP:RS content guideline, "[w]hen available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources" (WP:SOURCETYPES). In other words, secondary sources are preferred (WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Edcolins (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I will look for those too but for the most recent developments there are not yet many academic sources because the European Commission's proposal is only six months old. Thanks for letting me know about the preference for secondary sources. Bmitchener (talk) 08:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)