Exclusive: Dolby-backed Opus pool reveals royalty demands

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

Cookies Settings

Exclusive: Dolby-backed Opus pool reveals royalty demands

AdobeStock_482647355 (1).jpeg

The Vectis IP pool will charge €15c per unit for access to patents covering the Opus audio technology standard

Licensing firm Vectis IP, backed by Dolby and research group Fraunhofer, launched a new patent pool for the Opus audio technology standard today, January 16.

The pool licence offers access to more than 300 patents owned by Dolby and Fraunhofer at a rate of €15c ($16c) per unit with an annual cap of €15 million.

Licensees who sign up before October this year will pay a lower rate of €10c per unit, subject to an annual cap of €10 million.

The pool will not seek any royalties from licensees who sign up before October for any historic use of the standard.

The royalties charged to licensees who sign up after October will date to January 1, 2023.

The Opus standard was developed by programmers at Skype, Mozilla, and the Xiph.Org Foundation.

These organisations made a commitment to license the tech on an open-access, royalty-free basis.

None of Vectis, Dolby, or Fraunhofer were part of the standardisation process for Opus, which was carried out by the Internet Engineering Task Force.

Giustino de Sanctis, CEO of Vectis IP, told Managing IP that the original Opus developers’ royalty-free commitment didn’t cover all of the patents essential to the standard.

De Sanctis said the pool would target licensees involved in the manufacture of tablets, PCs, and smartphones.

Asked whether implementers would react negatively to being asked to pay for access to Opus technology, he said Vectis would work to educate the market.

“If the market has a certain expectation, you have to face that expectation.”

He acknowledged a comparison with the auto industry, which initially resisted pressure to license cellular patents.

“Automakers never thought this was a problem.

“It will be part of our job to go out there and explain this reality,” he said.

De Sanctis said the pool had been involved in discussions with potential licensors since an original call for patents last September.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Carpmaels & Ransford hires its fourth partner of the year and wins access to UPC files, as fresh orders address costs, confidentiality and the use of divisional patents
Gift this article