The SEP licensing conundrum

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

The SEP licensing conundrum

Negotiations over patent licensing are tricky. One bad sign is if parties start discussing standard-essential patents in detail

Michele Herman of Metabl and Richard Taffet of Morgan Lewis staged a mock negotiation yesterday as part of the session called "The Nuts and Bolts of Licensing: Strategies for Negotiating to Yes."

Negotiations over patent licensing are tricky enough. But Herman said it's a bad sign if parties start discussing standard-essential patents (SEPs) in detail.

She said when SEPs are involved, it is typically no different than any other portfolio negotiation. The biggest exception is when parties are unable to reach agreement.

"There is a conundrum when SEPs are involved," she said. "If you are not getting to that final compromise, this is where we see SEPs specifically identified and discussed. The patent owner might want to say, 'Hey, I have standard essential patents, you better take a license.' But as soon as he does that, the potential licensee says, 'Well, you have a FRAND commitment and you are not meeting it.'"

She added, "At the end of the day, if they are talking about the specifics of SEPs, they are probably not compromising – they are getting further away from each other and toward litigation."

In addition, a license to non-SEPs may terminate, but there may be restrictions on terminating a SEP license for customary reasons such as bankruptcy, or failing to meet performance requirements or milestones. A license to non-SEPs may be exclusive, but a SEP license may not be exclusive.

The "cost" of a SEP license depends on all the terms and conditions, Herman stressed. These include: the nature and amount of non-SEPs also being licensed; the fee and/or royalty structure; and the value of early adoption, volume, grant backs and other business agreements.

Herman concluded that the value of the portfolio is based on the entirety of the deal and what the parties bring to the table. "As the parties negotiate the terms and conditions, and compromise on them, their respective views on the specific monetary terms will change. The parties generally have a greater incentive to compromise when one party alleges infringement or SEPs are involved," Herman said.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Firms with established sports relationships and specialised expertise are well positioned to capture the market’s expanded pool of IP work
Gunjan Paharia discusses developing RIA, an AI platform built to draw on decades of institutional knowledge, support junior lawyers, and reshape how legal teams work
A strong Canadian business helped lift profits, but the IP service group's latest results underline the pressure facing its operations in Australia, New Zealand and parts of Asia
Wins in court have been key to the six-year-old firm’s growth, as one of its founders explains
The firm’s co-CEO discusses patent litigation, collaboration with overseas colleagues and the next generation of leaders
Two recent decisions demonstrate the courts’ creativity in cutting-edge IP disputes that tested their jurisdictional powers
Aditi Verma Thakur, managing partner at Aishani Partners, discusses 5 am wake-ups, working with high-performing professionals and staying calm under pressure
After more than three decades at Wilson Sonsini, Ian Edvalson explains why he moved to expand his life sciences transactional practice
While individual lateral hires and full-scale mergers remain popular options to scale a firm’s IP practice, recent activity indicates that a third option is proving successful
Lead King & Spalding trial lawyer says that while this is the first IP litigation defence victory for DoorDash, it certainly won’t be the last
Gift this article