Presumed Innocent: Hevc |top|

The phrase has emerged as a critical concept in tech licensing circles. It refers to a fundamental, yet often misunderstood, principle of patent law applied to standard-essential patents (SEPs): A technology is legally presumed not to infringe a patent until a court proves otherwise.

Unlike buying a single software license, implementing HEVC is like assembling a jigsaw puzzle where each piece’s owner demands a toll. The problem is that no single authoritative list of "required patents" exists. Patent holders often claim their intellectual property is "essential" to HEVC, but that claim is not legally verified until litigation occurs. Under the laws of major jurisdictions (U.S., Europe, China), a core tenet applies: A company is not infringing a patent simply because a patent holder says so. presumed innocent hevc

When a patent holder demands a royalty of, say, $1.00 per device, the implementer is presumed to be acting in good faith if they offer a lower amount (e.g., $0.20) based on comparable licenses. The implementer is not a "willful infringer" simply because they reject the initial offer. They are innocent of bad-faith negotiation until proven otherwise. The phrase has emerged as a critical concept