The recent Global Standards and Leadership Conference in Boston, MA brought together leaders from the technology, intellectual property, legal experts and policymaking communities. Across a full day of panels and presentations, one theme rang clear: Standards are a strategic cornerstone of innovation, competitiveness, and cross-industry collaboration.
This blog summarizes the core themes, strategic insights, and notable commentary shared during the event, particularly relevant for IP professionals, legal professionals, policymakers, and technology executives navigating the evolving standards ecosystem.
The conference opened with a resounding message: global standards are critical levers of economic resilience, interoperability, and technology leadership. With industries increasingly interlinked, standards provide the foundation that allows diverse technologies to communicate, scale, and integrate. Speakers emphasized that in a geopolitical climate of economic competition, control and influence over standards-setting processes have become a matter of national interest.
“We want to have one global standard for having economy of scale… but the drawback is that everyone wants their IP in the standard.”— Standards delegate, Global telecom company
Professor Tim Simcoe of Boston University reinforces the understanding of standards as not only technical tools, but also strategic market-shaping mechanisms.
The conference’s opening panel, moderated by Justus Baron, Founder of BRELA Research, addressed a fundamental question in SEP licensing: What is the value of a standard? The discussion centered on the principle that companies investing heavily in standard development are entitled to a fair return on that investment—an outcome essential to sustaining innovation and incentivizing continued participation in future technology generations. Panelists Tejas Shah, Senior Director of Licensing at InterDigital; Thomas Pease, Partner at Greenberg Traurig; Jon Putnam, Founder and Principal of Competition Dynamics; and Timothy Simcoe, Professor at Boston University, explored various perspectives on how to define and quantify fair returns. They emphasized that while pricing is one aspect, the broader concept of value—capturing the technical and economic contributions of 5G to the end product—must be considered in determining fair and reasonable licensing terms.
The experts stressed that it is important to note that value is not necessarily equivalent to price, and not all of the value a standard delivers is derived solely from patented technical specifications. Despite this complexity, there are economic models, that can be used to estimate value ranges. These models rely on factors like product pricing and disclosed royalty rates from licensing agreements, to infer the economic contribution of standards. The major challenge, however, lies in the limited transparency of licensing agreements. Most are confidential, and information about actual royalty payments is often buried in case law dockets, press releases, or financial disclosures. Although there are ongoing efforts to extract insights from such unstructured data, SEP licensing negotiations tend to be highly case-specific, making broad generalizations difficult.
Nonetheless, the use of rigorous economic analysis to assess value and estimate FRAND royalty ranges has grown significantly in recent years. Both courts and licensing parties are increasingly relying on these analytical approaches to support more informed and transparent decision-making in standard-essential patent (SEP) disputes and negotiations.
The second session of this year’s Global Standards Leadership Conference began by examining the varying interpretations of FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) obligations across global jurisdictions and the increasingly important role courts play in SEP (Standard Essential Patent) licensing and enforcement. Collette Rawnsley, Senior Director of IP Policy at Nokia, highlighted the complexities licensors face in aligning their strategies with differing legal standards in the United States, Germany, the UK and China. She emphasized the necessity for continuous legal monitoring to navigate these diverging frameworks effectively.
From the implementer’s perspective, John Mulgrew, Former Vice President of IP at Lenovo, noted that jurisdictional inconsistencies significantly impact both litigation posture and negotiation strategy. He pointed out that companies must often weigh the procedural landscape and risk of injunctive relief when selecting a venue, a reality that has led to an increase in forum shopping. Courts in jurisdictions like Germany and Brazil were cited as increasingly favourable for SEP holders.
The conversation then turned to how courts are shaping the assessment of SEP portfolio strength, essentiality, and license comparability. Patricio Delgado, Vice President of IPR Policy at Ericsson, explained how licensors are preparing for legal scrutiny by ensuring detailed essentiality assessments and maintaining documentation that supports the comparability of licenses. He stressed that a consistent approach across all his SEP license negotiations will ensure a FRAND outcome. Tom Brown, Senior Managing Legal Director at Dell, responded from the licensee’s standpoint, stressing the need for greater transparency and methodological clarity from SEP holders to ensure fair and objective portfolio evaluations. He wondered: Why are these comparable license agreements not public and accessible on the Internet?
The panel discussed whether courts possess the necessary expertise to evaluate SEP portfolios comprehensively. While acknowledging that judicial understanding of SEP issues has improved, the idea was discussed that expert bodies or arbitration panels may be better positioned to conduct the deep technical and economic analyses required – however the big concern with arbitration is that it is not public. John Mulgrew, Former Vice President of IP at Lenovo understands that evidence disclosed in arbitration will need to be kept secret, but why not publish the outcome?
This evolving legal landscape underscores the critical need for greater clarity, consistency, and expertise in the global administration of FRAND obligations.
The session next turned to the critical role of data in SEP licensing and enforcement, as well as the evolution of licensing models across emerging technologies and industries. Panelists discussed how data limitations continue to pose a major challenge for both licensors and implementers in accurately evaluating SEP portfolios and negotiating licenses.
From the implementer’s perspective, Tom Brown, Senior Managing Legal Director at Dell, and John Mulgrew, Former Vice President of IP at Lenovo, highlighted how data gaps—such as missing claim charts, vague declarations, and limited transparency around license terms—impede their ability to assess risk and engage in informed negotiations. He noted that the lack of accessible and reliable data on essentiality and licensing comparables often creates asymmetries in licensing discussions.
Industry experts detailed the growing importance of clean, verified SEP data, particularly in litigation and licensing contexts where portfolio size, quality, and technical contributions increasingly influence royalty negotiations.
The LexisNexis “Cellular Verified” initiative, in collaboration with over 30 ETSI-declaring companies, was spotlighted as a benchmark effort to clean, harmonize, and verify global SEP datasets. Tim Pohlmann, Managing Director Americas at LexisNexis, emphasized how this initiative is foundational to delivering reliable analytics and avoiding skewed rankings in legal and licensing contexts. This initiative addresses persistent problems of incomplete, duplicate, or biased declaration data, enabling more accurate litigation, licensing, and policy decisions.
The panel broadly agreed that improving the availability of data would significantly enhance both the efficiency and balance of the SEP licensing environment.
This fireside chat, moderated by Kirti Gupta, Vice President and Chief Economist at Cornerstone Research, explored the rapidly evolving landscape of SEP litigation. Panelists Richard Vary (Partner, Bird & Bird), Tim Syrett (Partner, WilmerHale), and Steven Baldwin (Partner, Kirkland & Ellis) provided expert insights into the latest developments in FRAND-related case law across key jurisdictions. The discussion emphasized how decisions from courts in the U.S., UK, Germany, and China are shaping legal interpretations and influencing cross-border licensing negotiations. With the inherently international nature of SEP agreements, the panel highlighted the growing importance of understanding foreign precedent, the risks of forum shopping, and the strategic considerations involved in multi-jurisdictional litigation. The session offered a timely and practical overview for legal and industry professionals navigating the complexities of global SEP enforcement.
The fourth sessions focused on the evolution of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to 5G, and the early groundwork being laid for 6G. Moderated by Marc Rysman, Professor at Boston University, this session brought together leading voices from the standardization and wireless innovation landscape to discuss the evolving global ecosystem shaping 6G. Speakers Milind Kulkarni, VP of Engineering at InterDigital; Peter Merz, Head of Standards at Nokia; Shahrokh Nayeb Nazar, Head of Patent Analysis & Assertion at Qualcomm; and Eswar Vutukuri, Director of Standards at ZTE, explored the convergence of technological innovation, global competition, and strategic imperatives on the path to 6G.
The session began by highlighting how wireless standards are no longer limited to connectivity alone. Instead, 5G and future 6G standards are foundational to adjacent sectors such as artificial intelligence or Internet of Things (IoT). The panel emphasized that standards are enabling capabilities far beyond traditional telecom applications, extending into domains like real-time robotics and edge computing. Both Nokia and InterDigital noted the growing demand for standards bodies to account for these expanded use cases during the development process, which will ultimately shape the real-world applicability of next-generation technologies.
Infrastructure rollout and geopolitical dynamics were discussed where the 5G deployment has shown significant global variance—shaped by national priorities, regulatory frameworks, and political interests—the panelists stressed that these factors will play an even greater role in 6G. ZTE and Nokia shared insights into the momentum of current 5G investments, with particular focus on Asia and Europe, and noted the importance of aligning policy frameworks with licensing regimes that support efficient, secure deployment. Lessons from 5G, particularly around spectrum allocation and cross-border collaboration, were viewed as essential to navigating the rollout of 6G more smoothly.
Shahrokh Nayeb Nazar addressed the current competitive landscape in 5G chip design, noting a trend among smartphone manufacturers toward developing in-house modem solutions to reduce reliance on external suppliers.
This forward-looking session underscored that 6G will not only require technological breakthroughs but also strategic alignment across the global ecosystem—from silicon and software to standards and geopolitics.
A recurring tension throughout the conference was the growing challenge of SEP licensing in the Internet of Things (IoT) ecosystem. Unlike smartphones or telecom infrastructure, where FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) is relatively established, the IoT market is highly fragmented and commercially diverse. This makes SEP licensing much more complex.
Panelists noted that IoT device makers, many of them small or mid-sized OEMs, are often caught off-guard by royalty demands and litigation threats. At the same time, SEP owners are struggling to apply legacy licensing frameworks to non-traditional implementers across smart homes, agriculture, wearables, and industrial sensors.
Quote from Conference:
“The SEP landscape in IoT is like the Wild West. You’ve got thousands of implementers, but no clear playbook on who licenses what, or where in the value chain it should happen.”— Tejas Shah, Sr. Director Licensing, InterDigital
Several speakers debated whether licensing should occur at the chip level (with component suppliers) or at the end-product level (with device makers), with no clear consensus emerging. The uncertainty creates inefficiencies and legal risks, particularly for startups and SMEs that may not even be aware they are implementing standardized technology.
The conversation also touched on royalty stacking and the difficulty of benchmarking fair rates when there is little pricing precedent in many IoT verticals.
“It’s not like a consumer good; you can’t go on Amazon and check the price of a patent license. That’s part of the problem, we need more pricing transparency, especially for new categories.”— Conference Participant (referencing IoT pricing opacity)
Speakers repeatedly returned to a key concern: SEP disputes are often complicated by inconsistent, unclean, or opaque data. The conference highlighted the importance of initiatives like LexisNexis IPlytics’ 5G SEP report, which sets a new bar for transparency and collaboration in data sharing.was held up as a model for collaboration, transparency, and accuracy in SEP intelligence.
Courts in China, Europe, and the U.S. are increasingly relying on reliable patent analytics to set global FRAND rates, making data accuracy a competitive differentiator.
Technology is increasingly being defined not just by innovation but by interoperability; the rules are changing. Standards have become a strategic domain rather than an afterthought or just another regulatory hurdle. Companies, governments, and institutions that engage early, transparently, and collaboratively in the standards-setting process will shape the next era of innovation.
The Global Standards and Leadership Conference 2025 was a powerful reminder that IP professionals and policymakers must treat standards as a frontline concern, not just a downstream legal or technical task. For tech executives, the message was equally clear: innovation leadership will increasingly depend on how well you play the standards game.
The Global Standards Leadership Conference (GSLC) brings together thought leaders from the realms of intellectual property, standardization, government, and academia. The conference aims to bridge the gap between policy, legal, academia, and industry experts.
