Industries are turning to a shared licensing model to navigate dense, overlapping patent landscapes and speed up innovation. Espie Angelica A. de Leon explores its real-world impact, strategic trade-offs and when joining makes sense.
 

The smartphone. A modern device consisting of multiple technologies – user interface, wireless, image processing, data processing, hardware design, 5G and others – all of them patented.  

How do smartphone manufacturers put all of these parts and features together in one powerhouse innovation while navigating transactions with various patent holders and accessing these technologies? 

The answer is patent pooling. 

Patent pools work like package deals. It is the practice of two or more patent owners to aggregate their patents on related technologies and offer them for licensing as a single bundle. They license this pool of patents among themselves or to third parties.  

Patent pooling is frequently seen in industries where a single product combines multiple complex technologies and patents, including those with unified technical standards, dense patent ownership, strong supply chain coordination, and where interoperability and technical standards are critical. 

These industries include telecommunications, consumer electronics, automotive technologies, Internet of Things (IoT), semiconductors, healthcare, biotechnology and certain clean‑tech applications.  

“These industries often face issues like overlapping patents, high licensing costs and frequent lawsuits,” said Xia Zheng, founder and patent attorney at AFD China in Beijing.  

One example of a patent pool is Denver, Colorado-based MPEG LA, a consortium of MPEG-2 patent owners in technology standards. MPEG-2 is the standard format for DVD, Blu-ray and digital television. MPEG LA was acquired in May 2023 and now operates as a division of San Francisco-based Via Licensing,  

Another is Medicines Patent Pool (MPP). With backing from the United Nations, MPP is an international public health organization working to provide expanded access to affordable medicines and technologies essential to the treatment of HIV, hepatitis C, Covid-19, cancer and other priority diseases. 

Benefits of patent pooling 

Patent pools benefit licensors, licensees or users and consumers. 

“A patent pool allows a single licensor to license to many users, or many licensors to license to many users through one platform. This avoids the need for repeated, complicated one-on-one negotiations between patent owners and users, significantly lowering licensing costs and improving efficiency,” Zheng explained. 

“For licensees, it reduces negotiation time, legal costs and uncertainty by providing access to multiple essential patents through a single license,” said Kate Wilson, an IP strategist at James & Wells in Auckland. 

It increases licensing uptake, generates more predictable revenue streams and reduces enforcement costs as well.  

If the patent pool is well-structured, it can also help lessen the risk of litigation. 

While cutting negotiation time, costs and litigation risks, patent pooling also promotes collaborative innovation and standardized technologies such as 5G, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. 

In essence, patent pooling offers a buffet of benefits. 

In telecommunications such as 5G and WiFi, a smartphone involves thousands of patents, as mentioned above. Patent pooling simplifies licensing transactions, which would have been lengthy and complex, and reduces cross-border disputes.  

In video and audio technology, there are common standards to comply with. With scattered patents, treading the licensing path will be difficult. However, a patent pool will make things simpler and cheaper.  

The supply chain in the new energy and electric vehicles industry is long. Furthermore, technologies are closely connected. A patent pool helps share technology and lower risks.  

In semiconductors, patents are deeply intertwined across different stages. Patent pooling once again comes to the rescue by bringing together key patents and reducing the possibility of lawsuits.  

Smart manufacturing and the industrial internet also rely on unified standards. With patent pools, collaborative innovation is possible.  

Patent pooling is likewise prevalent in the home appliances and smart homes industries to avoid internal disputes and boost global competitiveness. 

“Also, depending upon the deal structure, the pooled or bundled rights can be more readily selectively licensed to different parties, industries or jurisdictions – ultimately expanding the overall market,” Wilson noted. As such, patented technologies are transformed into real-world products and applications at a faster pace. This is especially important for emerging industries and, of course, consumers.  

In healthcare, for example, patent pools allow rapid delivery of more affordable medicines in the market, benefitting people from low- and middle-income countries.

Patent pools can be especially ideal for small businesses, universities and research institutions because they reduce licensing costs. With limited resources, these entities may find it expensive and difficult to enforce their rights. 

“I would like to see patent pooling becoming more prevalent with research organizations,” Wilson stated. “Often, publicly funded research generates enabling IP that can be used across multiple downstream applications. Pooling can act as a commercial bridge – something that can be lacking between the public sector and industry. Pooling allows widespread adoption without requiring the institution to negotiate and enforce dozens of separate licences.”  

In Thailand, there are ongoing policy-level discussions about whether patent pooling and similar mechanisms could be utilized to enhance policy leverage and address cost pressures and supply vulnerabilities, while also aligning with ethical considerations in terms of equitable access to essential medicines.  

Radeemada Mungkarndee, a partner and head of patent and life sciences at Lexel in Bangkok, explained: “From a policy standpoint, while Thailand has a relatively strong generic pharmaceutical sector, particularly in relation to small-molecule drugs, this alone may not be sufficient to enable earlier market entry during the patent term, as generic manufacturers would still need to wait for patent expiry or obtain appropriate licensing. In addition, the country continues to rely to a significant extent on imported active pharmaceutical ingredients, which may present certain structural constraints affecting cost efficiency and drug security.” 

However, Mungkarndee has been involved in advising on emerging structures that may be characterized as early-stage or quasi-patent pooling within the Thai innovation ecosystem. Such activities do not qualify as “classic” patent pools in the strict legal sense. From Mungkarndee’s perspective, a “classic” patent pool is a formal, centralized arrangement where multiple patent holders bring together selected patents and license them as a package through a common platform, typically under standardized terms and conditions.  

In Thailand, what is happening instead, especially in the life sciences sector, is a functional equivalent of the “classic” patent pool where multiple patent holders coordinate, explicitly or implicitly, to license related patents collectively. Such arrangements are more flexible and decentralized with licensing coordinated among the different patent owners participating instead of through a single pool entity. They also often involve complementary patent portfolios brought together through platform-based aggregation of technologies.  

“For example, in the context of life sciences technology platforms, university professors, who hold certain patents personally through startups, and the universities themselves, which own related patents in the same technological space, may collaborate to jointly license their respective IP to various entities, both locally and internationally,” Mungkarndee said. 

The Thailand Research and Innovation Utilization Promotion (TRIUP) Act, which came into effect in May 2022, mandates commercialization of government-funded research through the establishment of startups while empowering universities and research institutions to retain and actively manage IP ownership. It promotes decentralized IP consolidation and collaborative licensing through mechanisms such as spin-offs and incentive alignment for researchers.  

According to Mungkarndee, this framework cultivates a dynamic and complementary IP landscape across universities and founder-led entities. “This has, in turn, encouraged greater researcher participation in startup formation, particularly within universities with strong life sciences capabilities, and is accelerating the development of platform technologies, such as mRNA delivery systems and vaccine platforms. As these technologies often involve interdependent patents held by multiple stakeholders, the ecosystem naturally fosters opportunities for coordinated licensing. In this context, collaborative licensing arrangements can emerge, functioning as pooling-like mechanisms that resemble a hybrid between patent aggregation and licensing consortia,” she said. 

Patent pools also offer a variety of operational services. “During operation, patent pools can respond to the needs of the industry by providing services such as education on patent compliance and guidance on risk management. These services help improve the overall environment for innovation and increase the effectiveness and efficiency of patent commercialization,” said Zheng. 

“From a strategic perspective,” Zheng noted, “patent pools serve both defensive and offensive roles.” She explained by citing the Patent Pool Operation Standards released by the China Intellectual Property Society in September 2025. It states that patent pools can take a “passive defence approach” by helping members to jointly respond to external patent disputes and reducing the risk of litigation. On the other hand, patent pools adopt an offensive stance via their proactive licensing of patents. This opens up a stream of financial returns to patent owners through commercialization. At the same time, it also strengthens the patent owners’ influence and bargaining power in the market. 

The right time to join a patent pool 

When should a patent owner engage in patent pooling? 

“When it’s getting complicated or frustrating to progress commercialization with multiple rights owners,” Wilson answered. 

“A patent owner may have patented technology that is only one piece of what is required to commercialize or scale a greater technology, which in part is covered by others’ IP rights. Fragmented ownership can create licensing complexity or a barrier to entry to a commercializing party, which would rather be entering the market rather than negotiating,” Wilson explained. 

According to Zheng, in China, patent owners should consider joining a patent pool when these three conditions are met: their patents are complementary or essential to a standard, the benefits of joining outweigh the costs, and the arrangement complies with Chinese regulations. When these three are met, patent owners must ideally join during the early stage of industry standardization or before a product launch. This is applicable in telecommunications, new energy and smart manufacturing. Early participation helps avoid future patent disputes and aligns with government policy, she said.  

Lastly, it is always the right time to participate in a patent pool when the industry is prone to frequent patent disputes. By cross-licensing through the pool, costly lawsuits can be avoided quickly. 

However, there are situations where a patent holder should not be part of the pool at all. 

One of these is when the owner’s patents aren’t complementing the other patents in the pool but are actually competing with them. In such cases, it is better to leave out these patents. “This protects your high-value patents from being diluted and helps you avoid crossing antitrust lines by including unnecessary patents,” Zheng reasoned. 

The second situation which calls for non-participation is if the pool has unfair rules or terms: unreasonable fees, unnecessary patents, restricting members from licensing independently, setting prices collectively, forced grant-back or when the patent holder already has a stable mechanism for direct licensing and joining wouldn’t be productive, as it would only lessen the profits.  

Wilson advises patent owners to exercise careful due diligence before taking part in patent pooling. “This includes assessing whether their patents are truly essential or complementary, understanding how royalty rates are set and distributed and ensuring the pool is structured in a way that complies with competition and antitrust laws,” she explained. 

“Make sure revenue distribution is clearly agreed upon upfront. It should be based on patent value and actual contribution,” Zheng added, “not on an equal basis.” 

Other details that must be clearly defined are the rules for joining and leaving the pool and how enforcement and management costs will be shared among the parties.  

When it comes to decision-making, small- and medium-sized enterprises must have their say.  

“After joining, regularly check the pool’s operations and revenue distribution. If you find any violations or your interests are harmed, act decisively to withdraw or protect your rights. Finally, take advantage of policy support by paying attention to government priorities in strategic industries,” Zheng added. 

Patent pooling is a smart, practical way to commercialize and respond to market needs while evading legal risks. As long as organizations know how patent pools will work for them, when to participate, what loose ends to look out for and stay within the rules, then aggregating patents and licensing them as one bundle, like a package deal, could be their next best move.