Careers

Diversity

With 18 offices, from New York to Los Angeles and Seattle to Orlando, we live and work in communities all over the U.S., collaborating across locations, disciplines and even borders. Our experienced, highly ranked lawyers serve businesses wherever they are and wherever they want to go.

Offices

About Us

Pages

Professionals

Thought leadership: blogs, podcasts, videos, publications, events and news

Insights

Practices & Industries

Pro Bono

Am Law 100 firm with practices in Business, Digital Assets and Data Management, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Litigation and Tax.

Home | BakerHostetler

Alexander Reid, Carlos Ortiz Comment on Potential 2026 Litigation Issues for Tax Professionals in <em>Bloomberg Law</em> Article

Bethany Lukitsch Comments on Trends in Consumer Class Actions in <em>Law360</em> Article

Jimmy Fokas Joins Panel at Securities Enforcement Forum New York 2026

BakerHostetler Notches a Win for Inspire Brands in False Cookie Banner Suit

With 2025 drawing to a close, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Dec. 29 <a href="https://www.uspto.gov/subscription-center/2025/uspto-announces-sep-working-group" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">announcement</a> of its Standard-Essential Patent (SEP) Working Group signaled that the agency is continuing its campaign to enhance the strength and value of U.S. patents. What makes this announcement especially notable is the USPTO’s explicit reference to its two recent interventions: its <a href="https://www.justice.gov/atr/media/1404506/dl" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Statement of Interest</a> filed in a case pending in the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) and its <a href="https://www.justice.gov/atr/media/1419496/dl" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Public Comment</a> filed in the International Trade Commission’s (ITC) dynamic random access memory devices investigation.

core/paragraph

Revisiting the USPTO’s Recent Interventions

core/heading

In both matters, the USPTO, along with the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, took the unusual step of weighing in directly on how courts and agencies should approach patent remedies. In the EDTX, they argued that even non-practicing entities can suffer irreparable harm, especially when the value of a patent is difficult to quantify and monetary damages are speculative. This was a direct challenge to the prevailing view that injunctions should be rare for such entities, and it signaled a willingness to rethink the standards for injunctive relief in patent cases.

At the ITC, the agencies made an equally forceful case that exclusion orders should be the default remedy for valid and infringed patents and that the “public interest” exception should remain narrow and only come into play in truly extraordinary circumstances. In their view, robust enforcement of patent rights not only is good for patent holders but also serves the broader public interest by encouraging innovation and fair competition.

The SEP Working Group: Focusing on Patents That Shape Industry Standards

Now, with the SEP Working Group, the USPTO is building directly on these principles. The agency’s announcement explains that the foundational ideas found in its recent interventions are not just talking points but the bedrock for its approach to SEPs.

So how will the SEP Working Group actually work? The group is structured as a cross-functional team within the USPTO, combining legal, policy, and technical expertise. Its stated mandate is to engage with stakeholders across the innovation ecosystem including patent holders, implementers, standards organizations, and the public, to identify challenges and develop policy solutions related to SEPs. The group is expected to use the USPTO’s authority to issue guidance, participate in legal proceedings, and facilitate dialogue, with the aim of providing SEP owners with access to enforcement mechanisms that are consistent and predictable.

In effect, the SEP Working Group represents an effort by the USPTO to operationalize the principles it has previously advanced in court and at the ITC, applying them to the standards-setting context. The group’s activities may include clarifying remedies for patent holders, addressing rules for participation in standards development, and establishing processes for stakeholder input. Whether this approach will result in substantive changes to SEP policy or enforcement remains to be seen, and its impact will likely depend on how these initiatives are received by the broader innovation community.

Looking Ahead: Measuring Impact and Value

Viewed together, the USPTO’s recent interventions and the creation of the SEP Working Group reflect a strategic effort to enhance the value of U.S. patents. By grounding its new initiative in the principles articulated in both district court and ITC proceedings, the agency is seeking not only to clarify enforcement mechanisms but also to reinforce the significance and reliability of patent rights, particularly in the context of technical standards. As the SEP Working Group moves forward, its success will be measured by its ability to address stakeholder concerns and shape policies that meaningfully impact the value of patents. Whether these efforts will produce lasting change or simply add to the ongoing debate over the role of patents is not yet known, but what is evident is that the value of patents has returned to the forefront of policy discussions.

The USPTO’s SEP Working Group: The Next Chapter in Patent Value Advocacy

Featured Insights

Related Services

Featured Insights