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 2025

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

Geoff Steward and Rebecca Newman of Addleshaw Goddard explain how they secured victory in a rare ‘genericide’ case and why the work went beyond the courtroom
Nancy Frandsen looks back on her career, from answering a paralegal advert to expanding RCCB’s ‘entrepreneurial’ IP practice as a partner
The tie-up could result in the firm’s German and France-based teams, which both have strong UPC expertise, becoming independent
News of a slowdown in the UK’s clean energy IP landscape and an EPO report on unitary patent uptake were also among the top talking points
Price hikes at ‘big law’ firms are pushing some clients toward boutiques that offer predictable fees, specialised expertise, and a model built around prioritising IP
The Australian side, in particular, can benefit by capitalising on its independent status to bring in more work from Western countries while still working with its former Chinese partner
Koen Bijvank of Brinkhof and Johannes Heselberger of Bardehle Pagenberg discuss the Amgen v Sanofi case and why it will be cited frequently
View the official winners of the 2025 Social Impact EMEA Awards
King & Wood Mallesons will break into two entities, 14 years after a merger between a Chinese and an Australian firm created the combined outfit
Teams from Shakespeare Martineau and DWF will take centre stage in a dispute concerning the registrability of dairy terminology in plant-based products
Gift this article