5 in ’25: Standard Essential Patents

Standard essential patents (SEPs) continue to sit at the center of global technology disputes. Here, we highlight five major developments shaping SEP enforcement, licensing, and policy across key jurisdictions.

1. Eastern District of Texas remains top SEP venue

The Eastern District of Texas remained a magnet for SEP litigation. In 2025, Judge Rodney Gilstrap handled lawsuits filed by Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc., Arlington Technologies, LLC, Pegasus Wireless Innovation, LLC, L2 Mobile Technologies, LLC, Malikie Innovations Ltd., Wi-LAN, Inc., VoiceAge EVS, LLC, Empire Technology Development, LLC, Wacom Co., Acer, Inc., and Cornell University, all of which implicate fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) affirmative defenses. Also in July 2025, Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC, launched an 11-defendant campaign in the district asserting patents deemed essential to Wi-Fi 6.

Atlas Global Techs. LLC v. TP-Link Techs. Co., Ltd., No. 2:21-cv-00430-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) is an illustrative example of Judge Gilstrap’s FRAND jurisprudence. There, Judge Gilstrap dismissed implementer TP-Link’s breach of FRAND contract counterclaim at the summary judgement stage, rejecting an argument that Atlas Global violated its obligation by failing to make any pre-suit FRAND offer. Atlas Global maintained that its letter of assurance imposed no such obligation and further alleged that TP-Link forfeited its rights to a FRAND license because it was not a willing licensee.

2. EU’s “one court” approach reaching for U.S. patent rights

SEP holders stand to benefit from the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v. Electrolux AB, CJEU, decision of 25-02-2025 – C 339/22 ruling.¹ The CJEU held that claimants could initiate infringement proceedings of foreign, non-EU patents (including U.S. patents) against EU-domiciled defendants in an EU member state courts regardless of where the infringing acts occurred. Thus, SEP holders are no longer confined to a fragmented “divide and conquer” enforcement strategy. If an implementer is headquartered or has its principal place of business in an EU member state, a single lawsuit can initiate a global campaign. Consolidation reduces litigation costs and exerts greater pressure on implementers.

In November, Onesta IP, LLC, asserted U.S. patents alongside German patents in the Munich I Regional Court against BMW AG to test the BSH framework’s limits. This is the first known use of a German Regional Court to adjudicate U.S. patent infringement. If Onesta IP ultimately succeeds, SEP holders may bypass U.S. venues against EU-domiciled implementers and EU courts may set damages and grant injunctions for U.S.-based infringement.

On December 16, Judge Alan Albright of the Western District of Texas granted an ex parte temporary restraining order against Onesta IP, finding “a substantial risk of irreparable harm to BMW, and to the jurisdiction of this Court, if Onesta ... were to attempt to enforce or pursue an anti-anti-suit injunction” pursuant to the German proceeding. See Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v. Onesta IP, LLC, No. 6:25-cv-00581-ADA, at 1 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2025) (Dkt. 16).

3. U.K interim license no longer a safe harbor against injunctions

A jurisdictional conflict between the U.K. and Germany over interim licenses may significantly erode the viability of U.K. interim licenses as safe harbors against injunctions and may even trigger immediate cross-border injunctions.

U.K. courts have been amenable to interim licenses in pending SEP litigation. This enabled implementers to temporarily continue sales while courts determine final FRAND terms. In Panasonic Holdings Corp. v. Xiaomi Tech. UK Ltd & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 1143, ¶ 101, the England and Wales Court of Appeal required an interim license with a later true-up where litigants “invoke[ ] the jurisdiction of the English courts to determine FRAND terms for a global licence” and parties agree “to enter into a licence on the terms determined by the Patent Courts to be FRAND.”² Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd. & Anor v. ZTE Corp. & Ors [2025] EWHC 1432 (Pat) applied this framework to a court of first instance for the first time.

In 2025, Germany shut the door on applying U.K. interim licenses cross-border. The UPC’s Mannheim Local Division (LD) granted the first-ever anti-interim-license Injunction (AILI) for InterDigital against implementer Amazon.com. The court found Amazon.com’s interim license functionally equivalent to “a de facto prohibition on litigation” that “is intended to shield the proceedings before the UPC.” InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., UPC, LD Mannheim, decision of 30-09-2025 – UPC_CFI_936/2025, ¶ 49, 52. Munich I Regional Court’s 21st Civil Chamber granted an AILI on similar grounds. The two AILIs issued as ex parte preliminary injunctions with daily financial penalties for noncompliance.

The England and Wales High Court did not back down. After acknowledging the “genuinely-held differences between the different courts, which will no doubt be explored … possibly by appeals to higher courts in all of the jurisdictions, or by references to the CJEU, and by various other means,” Amazon.com, Inc. v. InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. [2025] EWCA 2600 [Pat], ¶ 20, the High Court issued an interim anti-anti-suit injunction barring InterDigital from obstructing Amazon.com’s pursuit of relief in the U.K.

In late December 2025, the Unified Patent Court’s (UPC) Mannheim LD said EU member states do not recognize U.K.-issued interim licenses. The court also ordered Amazon.com to refrain from enforcing one in a UPC proceeding and warned of sanctions for noncompliance.

4. New administration, new Department of Justice

With a new administration in 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) signaled that it is pursuing a patentee-friendly turn in SEP policy.

On June 24, 2025, the DOJ filed a Statement of Interest in Radian Memory Sys. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No: 2:24-cv-01073 (E.D. Tex.), suggesting that infringing a non-practitioner’s patent can cause irreparable harm such that monetary damages alone may be an insufficient remedy. The DOJ also underscored the central role of injunctive relief in the patent system — even for non-practitioners — but stopped short of arguing against eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 338 (2006).

On October 6, 2025, the DOJ filed another Statement of Interest in Disney Enters., Inc. v. InterDigital, Inc., No. 25-cv-996-MN (D. Del.), stressing that patent ownership — even for standard essential ones — does not necessarily confer market power.

On November 25, 2025, the DOJ and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) filed a Joint Public Interest Comment in International Trade Commission Inv. No. 337-TA-3854 arguing that the Commission should presume exclusion for 19 U.S.C. § 337 violations and limit public interest exceptions to rare and extraordinary cases to be assessed only after findings of infringement and validity.

5. Evolving prosecution and portfolio strategies

In 2025, SEP prosecution continued to shift from “concept” prosecution to “standard-mapping” prosecution. For emerging standards like Wi Fi 7 and 6G, applicants increasingly drafted claims to read explicitly on mandatory features, often tracking the language used in technical specifications. The objective is to reduce essentiality disputes and improve valuation and acceptance in patent pools.

Wireless charging has continued to rise alongside connectivity as a high-priority SEP practice. In addition, drafting focus gravitated toward interoperability and safety features likely to be standardized, including alignment and discovery signaling, negotiated power profiles, foreign-object detection, and thermal or power-transfer constraints that are measurable and therefore easier to map in essentiality reviews.

Late in 2025, the USPTO launched the Streamlined Claim Set Pilot Program to accelerate examination of applications with a limited number of claims. SEP applicants began relying on this program to accelerate allowance and build leverage quickly — often before anticipated pool launches — while preserving continuations to track evolving releases and optional features of the standards.

Finally, artificial intelligence (AI) tools began displacing purely manual SEP analysis by allowing parties to scan large patent portfolios and assess essentiality and assertion strength. As a result, we are starting to see less reliance on a limited “proud list” or “crown jewels” subset of SEPs, as AI-enabled screening makes it more feasible to evaluate entire patent portfolios. In practice, this shortens time to chart, aligns prosecution with licensing, and provides an advantage in licensing or settlement negotiations.