EV Battery SEP & FRAND: How Standard Essential Patents Are Reshaping the Industry

The Invisible Toll Road: SEPs and FRAND in the EV Battery Industry

Beneath the visible competition of range, price, and charging speed that dominates EV industry coverage lies a less visible but economically consequential battle over standard essential patents (SEPs) and the FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) licensing obligations that govern them. As EV technology standardizes—from charging protocols to battery management architectures—the companies that hold SEPs in these standards will collect royalties from every market participant, regardless of whether they manufacture vehicles, batteries, or charging infrastructure. Understanding the EV SEP landscape is no longer optional for any serious player in the mobility industry.

EV Charging Standards and SEPs: The CCS, NACS, and CHAdeMO Patent Landscape

DC fast charging standards are among the richest SEP territories in the EV ecosystem. The Combined Charging System (CCS) is built on IEC 61851 and ISO 15118 standards, and numerous patents held by European automakers, Bosch, Continental, and Phoenix Contact that read on these standards may qualify as SEPs. The ISO 15118 standard—which governs plug-and-charge communication, smart charging coordination, and vehicle-to-grid (V2G) data exchange—is particularly patent-dense, with contributions from multiple major corporations.

The elevation of Tesla’s North American Charging Standard (NACS) to SAE J3400 standard status has opened a critically important IP question: do any Tesla patents on NACS connectors, communication protocols, or safety systems qualify as SEPs, and if so, under what FRAND terms will Tesla license them? The answers will shape the economics of the North American charging infrastructure buildout for the next decade.

Battery Management System (BMS) SEPs: Safety Standards as IP Territory

Battery management systems are increasingly governed by safety and interoperability standards—particularly ISO 26262 (functional safety), ISO 6469 (safety requirements for electrically propelled road vehicles), and IEC 62660 series (battery testing). Where specific implementation methods required to comply with these standards are covered by patents, those patents may qualify as SEPs. BMS-related SEP candidates include cell voltage monitoring architectures, state-of-charge estimation algorithms incorporating specific standardized interfaces, and thermal runaway detection methods incorporated into certification protocols.

As BMS standardization deepens to support second-life battery applications, vehicle-to-grid integration, and cross-platform battery interoperability, the SEP density in this domain will only increase.

FRAND Negotiations in Practice: Lessons from Telecom Applied to EVs

The automotive industry is about to learn what the telecommunications industry learned through two decades of painful litigation: SEP holders and implementers have fundamentally different views of what constitutes a “fair and reasonable” royalty. Telecom precedents—Nokia v. Daimler, Ericsson v. Apple, Huawei v. ZTE—have established frameworks for calculating FRAND royalties, proportionality to the standard’s value, comparability to existing licenses, and non-discrimination across similarly situated licensees. These frameworks are now being imported into automotive IP disputes.

The Avanci platform, which has successfully aggregated and licensed connected vehicle SEPs (covering 4G/5G cellular connectivity in vehicles) to most major OEMs at a fixed per-vehicle rate, provides the most relevant existing model. Whether a similar platform can be constructed for EV-specific SEPs—charging protocols, BMS standards, V2G interfaces—remains to be seen, but the Avanci model demonstrates that collective licensing solutions are achievable even in complex multi-stakeholder environments.

Chinese Companies and SEP Strategy: CATL and BYD’s Standardization Push

China’s leading battery manufacturers have observed the telecommunications industry’s SEP playbook—most notably Huawei’s strategy of contributing heavily to 5G standardization to accumulate SEPs—and are applying similar logic to EV battery standards. CATL and BYD participate actively in IEC, ISO, and Chinese national standards committees, contributing technical proposals that, when incorporated into published standards, may generate SEP portfolios. For Western OEMs that source battery cells or packs from Chinese manufacturers while simultaneously competing with them in end markets, this creates a complex IP dependency that extends beyond supply chain risk into licensing obligation territory.

Anticipated SEP Litigation Scenarios in the EV Industry

The relative calm of the current EV SEP landscape reflects early market stage dynamics rather than the absence of underlying conflict. As market volumes grow and competitive intensity increases, several litigation scenarios become increasingly probable. Charging infrastructure operators may face SEP assertions from patent holders whose technologies are incorporated into CCS or NACS standards. Chinese OEMs entering European markets may face injunction applications based on alleged failure to obtain FRAND licenses for EV-relevant SEPs. V2G service providers—who must implement ISO 15118 to enable grid-interactive charging—may become targets for SEP holders seeking royalties on each connected vehicle session.

The automotive industry’s institutional preference for engineering solutions over legal battles has historically limited SEP litigation compared to telecommunications. But the scale of EV market growth, the number of new entrants unfamiliar with SEP licensing obligations, and the accumulation of IP by non-practicing entities (NPEs) in the charging and BMS domains suggest that a wave of EV SEP disputes is more a matter of when than whether.

Conclusion: SEP Literacy as a Core EV Business Competency

For any company operating in the EV value chain—from cell manufacturers to charging network operators—understanding which standards govern your products, which patents may be essential to those standards, and what FRAND licensing obligations you may owe is increasingly a business necessity rather than a legal technicality. The companies that proactively map their SEP exposure, participate in standards development to shape the IP landscape, and negotiate licensing positions before disputes arise will be far better positioned than those who discover their obligations through litigation. In the EV industry, the invisible toll road of SEP royalties runs beneath every charger, every battery pack, and every connected vehicle on the road.