In recent years, due to the impact of the Qualcomm case and the IDC case, the implementation of patent rights involving SEP has received extensive attention. People's attitudes towards SEP and its patentees have also changed several times with the development of these cases.

 

 

 

At first, many people regarded SEP as a weapon to protect the rights and interests of patentees. After that, people gradually realized that the patentee occupies an advantageous position in the implementation of SEP, and it is easy to take advantage of the particularity of SEP to implement monopolistic behavior, and hold the counterparty in license negotiation or litigation. With the enhancement of this understanding, courts and governments began to regulate the implementation of SEP patents. For example, in the aforementioned Qualcomm and IDC cases, the courts and government agencies conducted antitrust reviews.

 

 

 

More and more SEP specialists find that they must follow the RAND or FRAND principle if they want to avoid antitrust risks. This makes patentees often need to negotiate licenses before they can sue. In addition, for some SEPs, it is difficult to obtain courts. Issues such as bans. Due to these restrictions on SEP, there is currently a phenomenon of reverse hijacking, that is, potential licensees deliberately delay licensing negotiations, thereby coercing the patentee to lower the licensing conditions. In the general environment of advocating the protection of intellectual property rights, these unfavorable factors for patentees have also attracted people's attention.

 

 

 

In this context, a recent patent infringement lawsuit involving SEP is worthy of attention. In this case, Xi’an Xidian Jietong Wireless Network Communication Co., Ltd., the patentee of the SEP, which has the WAPI (Wireless LAN Authentication and Privacy Infrastructure) standard, a compulsory national standard, filed an agreement with Sony Mobile Communication Products (China) in 2015. The company filed an infringement lawsuit, accusing the latter of infringing its SEP. The case was heard in Beijing Intellectual Property Court in February 2016. One of the concerns of this case is that in the "Judicial Interpretation on Patent Infringement Cases Concerning Patent Infringement Cases (2)" issued by the Supreme People's Court in April 2016, only the implementation of essential patents involved in recommended national, industry or local standards Some specific circumstances at the time were stipulated, and many aspects such as the implementation of essential patents involved in mandatory national standards were left blank. The trial results of Xi’an Xidian Jietong and Sony may give guidance in this regard.