IP Litigation

BD for SEP/FRAND and Licensing Practice

July 12, 2027 · 4 min read · LeadLex Editorial

SEP and FRAND work is one of the most concentrated practice areas in intellectual-property law. The number of meaningful licensors, implementers, pools, and intermediaries is small. The decision-makers know each other. The cycles are long, the stakes are large, and the boundary between licensing strategy and litigation strategy is thin. The BD problem here is not lead generation. It is ecosystem mapping.

Why lead generation is the wrong frame

A BD plan that treats SEP and FRAND practice as a market to prospect into will fail. The addressable population of clients is small enough that any serious practitioner already knows most of the names. What separates the firms that win mandates from the firms that do not is the depth and accuracy of their map — who licenses what, to whom, on what terms, through which intermediaries, with which counsel, in which forums.

The work is to maintain that map continuously, to identify the inflection points where a relationship becomes addressable, and to be the firm that the right person calls at the right moment. None of that is a campaign.

The ecosystem map

A useful ecosystem map for SEP and FRAND practice has four layers. The first is the licensor layer — the entities holding declared-essential portfolios, their declaration patterns at standards bodies, and the structure of their licensing programmes. The second is the implementer layer — the companies whose products read on the relevant standards, segmented by sector and by their public posture on licensing. The third is the pool and intermediary layer — the patent pools, agents, and licensing administrators who shape how programmes are negotiated. The fourth is the forum layer — the courts, tribunals, and regulators that produce the decisions which move the market.

Lexi keeps this map current. She monitors standards declarations, public licensing announcements, pool memberships, regulatory filings, and litigation dockets across the relevant venues. She does not opine on essentiality or set rates. She maintains the connective tissue that lets a partner see, at a glance, where a target sits in the ecosystem and what has changed since the last contact.

The inflection points that matter

Most SEP and FRAND mandates originate at predictable inflection points. A new generation of a standard reaches critical implementation mass. A major licensor announces a new programme or a revised rate structure. A landmark judgment shifts the leverage between licensors and implementers. A pool changes its membership or terms. An implementer enters a new product category that brings them within scope of a programme they had not previously needed to engage with.

Each of these inflections produces a window of addressability for BD. The window is usually short and the audience is usually narrow. Lexi flags the inflections and matches them to the accounts in the firm's map where the inflection creates a reason to make contact. The partner provides the substance.

Conferences and the small-group economy

The SEP and FRAND community is small enough that a handful of conferences and a handful of dinners do more BD work than any other channel. IPBC, IAM events, the major standards body meetings, and a small set of academic and policy gatherings are where the relationships are reinforced. Presence at these events is not optional for a firm that wants to compete seriously.

The BD work around these events is preparation. Who is attending. What have they said publicly in the last quarter. What recent decisions or programme announcements affect them. What is the firm's last point of contact with them and what was the substance. A partner who walks into a conference dinner with this preparation will have a different conversation than one who does not. Lexi assembles the briefings.

Conflicts and positioning

SEP and FRAND practice forces a positioning choice that other IP practices do not. A firm that represents major licensors will struggle to represent major implementers, and vice versa. A firm that tries to do both at scale will hit conflicts constantly and will be trusted by neither side on the questions that matter.

The BD operation has to be built around the positioning choice. The map, the cadence, and the conference presence all reflect the chosen side. Attempting to BD both sides is the most common strategic mistake in this practice area, and it is visible to the market.

What practice group leaders should actually do

Invest in the map. Choose a side. Instrument the inflection points so that the firm is present in the conversations that matter, when they matter. Use the conferences seriously, with preparation. And accept that pipeline reporting in this practice is mostly a record of relationship depth, not a record of opportunities in defined stages.