People who read my posts are likely familiar with the parts of the IEEE's SEP policy that are often a source of contention between SEP holders and implementers. I was interested to see (reported by @IAM_Alerts) that IEEE has announced a review into two of the more divisive aspects:
(i) the significant restriction on seeking injunctive relief for the holder of a patent declared essential (to an IEEE standard); and
(ii) the non-mandatory factors said to be relevant to the determination of an ex-ante reasonable rate (including consideration of the smallest saleable unit, apportionment and the exclusion of any comparable licence obtained under express or implied threat of injunctive relief).
Implementers are obviously keen on the policy while SEP holders are not. This again is a reminder of how the industry has shifted over the years, from being comprised of a number of entities which were both substantial SEP holders and implementers in their own right, to a more polarised field where most tend to significantly favour one side of that debate (some notable exceptions aside).
I suspect the most interesting thing about this will be the Biden administration's position on SEP policy generally. Things took a significant turn during the Trump years and the key questions are whether there will be any course adjustment and, if so, by how much.
That points to the IEEE SA’s not inconsiderable dilemma of being stuck between the Scylla and Charybdis of the overwhelming weight of numbers on the implementer side and an SEP policy dynamic that shifted markedly under the Trump-era DOJ.