Comparative analysis of policy developments
SSO's role in facilitating IP policy measures
Jurispridence evolved in cases involving standard essential patents.

1. Comparative analysis of policy developments
1. Introduction
2. India
2.1. Overview of the Indian patent system
2.2. Indian law and licensing
2.3. National IPR policy
2.4. India's digital initiatives
2.5. DIPP consultation paper
2.6. The TRAI consultation paper and the recommendation papers
2.7. The national digital communications policy
3. European Union
3.1. Overview of European patent system
3.2. EU and standardization
3.3. Public consultation on patent and standards
3.4. Setting out the EU approach to SEPs
3.5. Standard essential patents and the internet of things : in-depth analysis, European Union
3.6. Guidelines on the handling of the antitrust compulsory license objection according to Huawei v. ZTE within the Munich procedure of handling patent infringement cases
3.7. EU communication making the most of the EU's innovative potential an intellectual property action plan to support the EU's recovery and resilience
3.8. EU studies
4. United States of America (USA)
4.1. Overview of US patent system
4.2. USA : competition enforcers and licensing
4.3. The 2017 antitrust guidelines for the licensing of intellectual property
4.4. The new Madison approach
4.5. Policy statement of remedies for standards : essential patents subject to voluntary F/RAND commitments
4.6. Business review letters (BRL)
5. China
5.1. Overview of Chinese IP system
5.2. Standard setting in China
5.3. Framework for injunctions
5.4. Beijing guidelines, 2017
5.5. Guangdong guidelines, 2018
5.6. The Chinese antimonopoly law and SEPs
6. Japan
6.1. A brief overview of Japan's patent system
6.2. Guidelines for the use of intellectual property under the Japanese antimonopoly act
6.3. Recent technical studies on IP and SEPs in Japan
6.4. Guide to licensing negotiations involving SEPs
6.5. Guidelines on the 'fair value calculation of SEP for multi-component products'


2. SSOs' role in facilitating IP policy measures
1. Introduction
2. Why do we need a standard?
3. Standard setting organizations
4. Importance of SSOs in setting essential patents
4.1. Standard setting process in SSOs
4.2. Advantages and risk of standard setting by SSOs
4.3. IPR policies of SSOs : understanding disclosure and licensing of essential patents
5. Disclosure and licensing of essential patents
5.1. Disclosure and licensing requirements ETSI
5.2. Disclosure and licensing requirement of TSDSI
5.3. Disclosure and licensing requirement IEEE
6. FRAND commitment and injunction
3. Jurisprudence evolved in cases involving standard essential patents
1. Introduction
2. Disclosure requirement
3. Non-disclosure at the time of standard development
3.1. Non-disclosure amounting to equitable doctrine of implied waiver
4. Injunctive relief
4.1. Pre-Huawei Jurisprudence
4.2 Huawei v ZTE
4.3 Post Huawei
5. Developments in India
6. Antisuit Injunction
7. Conclusion
Annexure I: Membership application form for TSDSI
Annexure II: IPR licensing declaration form for TSDSI
Annexure III: IPR information statement and licensing declaration for TSDSI
Annexure IV: IPR information statement for TSDSI
Annexure V: IPR licensing declaration for TSDSI
Annexure VI: Application for ETSI membership
Annexure VII: IPR licensing declaration form for ETSI
Annexure VIII: Statement and licensing declaration form for ETSI
Annexure IX: ETSI-IPR Information statement annex
Annexure X: Optional written explanation of reasons for not making the IPR licensing declaration
Annexure XI: Letter of assurance for essential patent claims for IEEE.