Opinion
This week, two patent pools are in China: Avanci is hosting an event of global scope (April 20, 2026 LinkedIn post by Avanci) and Sisvel celebrates the opening of the firm’s Shenzhen office (April 21, 2026 LinkedIn post by Sisvel). Just yesterday, we published an interview with Huawei’s strategic IP planner Emil Zhang discussing his company’s participation in many pools (some run by the companies we just mentioned, and some by Access Advance and Via) for the purpose of providing legal and economic certainty to “critical verticals” such as point-of-sale terminals.
Well, some stakeholders seek to undermine that same legal and economic certainty. Some believe — rightly or wrongly — that the world would be a better place (for them at least) if courts or regulators put obstacles in the way of patent pools:
- The European Commission’s (EC) Directorate-General for Competition (DG COMP) released its new Technology Transfer Guidelines (TTG) last week (April 16, 2026 commentary). The legally non-binding document departs from the EC’s earlier, clearly pro-pool policies.
- The UK Supreme Court (UKSC) will hold a three-day hearing next week (April 16, 2026 ip fray article) to discuss Tesla’s idea that global patent pool rates should be set in the UK — just at time when judicial overreach is facing pushback at various levels in and from the world’s largest economies (April 14, 2026 ip fray article).
Neither are pools charities nor should they be above the law. But they bring parties together. At scale:
- Take Via Licensing Alliance’s AVC/H.264 pool, for instance. They list more than 1,700 licensees and 44 licensors. That’s almost 75,000 licensor-licensee pairs. And it’s only one pool operated by one of several major pool administrators.
- Access Advance lists 401 licensees for its HEVC Advance pool and 46 licensors. That’s 18,446 licensor-licensee pairs.
- Avanci has formed approximately 8,000 licensor-licensee relationships with its Avanci Vehicle programs, and about 10,000 if one adds its other pools.
- There are more video pools. There are WiFi pools. Wireless charging pools. The total number is probably north of 200,000.
Realistically, if pools hadn’t made those deals happen, there would have been far more patent infringement litigation. It’s a safe assumption that pools have avoided thousands of patent disputes (and a patent dispute often consists of more than one lawsuit).
Another interesting effect of patent pools is that non-litigious innovators also get paid. Companies like Apple, Samsung or Deutsche Telekom would not go out and sue. But through patent pools, they receive royalty income that they can reinvest in innovation: the virtuous cycle of patent monetization and R&D.
Again, none of those accomplishments immunize patent pools from competition law or regulation. But the positive effects of patent pools must not be forgotten when contemplating intervention that could inflict damage to a functioning ecosystem that is part of the innovation economy.
It’s hard to see how an optional alternative licensing offer can confer market power. It always competes with bilateral alternatives, and if an implementer offers only a pool license, the courts of law will decide whether that approach, in structural as well as quantitative terms, is fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND).
There will always be some who would like to bring down patent royalties. In practice, pool royalties are almost always a better deal for implementers than a multiplicity of bilateral deals. Whenever one hears of massive ask-bid discrepancies, it’s about bilateral licensing terms, and in those cases implementers often point to pool rates as comparables. The latter is a well-documented fact in U.S. litigation, which is fairly transparent. It started with Microsoft v. Motorola in the early 2010s. Presently, Amazon is telling courts in different jurisdictions that it would like to apply the Access Advance VDP rate to InterDigital’s video patents. We heard that during public hearings in the UK and the UPC. When deep-pocketed and sophisticated implementers prefer pool rates over bilateral licensing terms, it is a good sign. And it ups the ante for those who want courts or regulators to put a thumb on the scales.