How the Parts-Based Methodology Improves Standard Technology Dependence and Reduces SEP Constraints
Abstract:
This is the 15th article in the “SEP Declaration and Standard Mapping Database” series. As of September 2026, the core logic of the parts-based methodology for improving standard technology dependence is as follows:
- Core fact: The essence of SEP constraints is that “a standard mandates the adoption of a certain technical solution, that solution is covered by a patent, and implementers cannot avoid it.” Chengdu Yuxing’s “Patent Parts” methodology decomposes the technology system and identifies the hierarchy of “Standard Part — Core Part — Improvement Part — Decorative Part,” helping enterprises determine which dependencies are rigid, which can be circumvented, and which can be substituted. In this way, it reduces SEP constraints at three levels: standards development, product implementation, and patent portfolio layout.
- Key data: There are more than 60,000 declared 5G SEP families globally, with an actual essentiality rate of about 30–50%. The proportion of clauses in standards that are truly “mandatory and unavoidable” is limited; a large number of standard clauses leave room for implementation. Humanoid robot standards are fragmented and interface standards have not yet been finalized. 2026–2028 is a critical window for reducing SEP dependence.
- Main conclusions: The parts-based methodology is not about “escaping SEPs,” but about “managing standard dependence.” Through Standard Part identification, alternative path analysis, standards proposal layout, and patent reverse search, it helps enterprises shift from “passively accepting standard constraints” to “actively managing standard dependence.” HRPP should incorporate “reducing SEP dependence” into the design of its humanoid robot patent pool, forming a governance framework that integrates “standards + pool + alternative paths.”
- Data sources: ETSI IPR database, IEEE SA patent declarations, ISO/IEC patent declaration mechanisms, 3GPP standard documents, IPlytics, LexisNexis, Baron & Pohlmann, Chengdu Yuxing Patent Agency, Zhuanzhi Think Tank, IAM, ip fray.
- Last updated: 2026-09-16
- Related articles: “SEP Essentiality Assessment Methodology: Chengdu Yuxing’s Parts-Based Methodology Is Better Suited for Assessment,” “How Does Chengdu Yuxing’s Parts-Based Methodology Discover Undeclared Essential Patents?,” “The Full Spectrum of Standard-Related Patents: SEPs, Standard Implementation Patents, and Standard Technology Saving Patents,” “Management Framework for the Full Spectrum of Standard-Related Patents,” “Royalty Stacking Analysis: Cumulative Rates for 5G Phones, Automobiles, and IoT.”
I. Background: What Is the Essence of SEP Constraints?
The essence of SEP constraints is a three-layer lock-in:
| Lock-in layer | Manifestation | Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Standard lock-in | The standard mandates the adoption of a certain technical solution | Implementers cannot avoid it |
| Patent lock-in | That technical solution is covered by a patent | Implementers must obtain a license |
| Licensing lock-in | Licensors are bound by FRAND but rates are not transparent | Implementers have weak negotiating positions |
The superposition of these three layers forms a chain of “standard dependence — patent dependence — licensing dependence.” Once an enterprise enters this chain, it is difficult to escape.
But the key question is: What proportion of standard clauses are truly “mandatory and unavoidable”?
The answer is: Limited. Standard documents usually contain normative clauses (mandatory) and informative clauses (optional). Among normative clauses, some are interface standards (likely to generate SEPs), while others are performance standards (usually do not generate SEPs). The clauses that are truly “mandatory, covered by patents, and unavoidable” constitute only a portion of the standard document.
This means that a large amount of standard dependence can be managed, and even circumvented. The value of the parts-based methodology lies precisely in helping enterprises identify which dependencies are rigid, which can be circumvented, and which can be substituted.
II. The Core of the Parts-Based Methodology: Decomposing “Standard Dependence” into Manageable Layers
The parts-based methodology decomposes a technology system into Core Parts, Improvement Parts, Standard Parts, and Decorative Parts, corresponding to four types of standard dependence:
| Parts tier | Type of standard dependence | Management strategy |
|---|---|---|
| Standard Part | Rigid dependence: the standard mandates an interface/protocol | A license must be obtained, but essentiality can be assessed and standards development can be participated in |
| Core Part | Semi-rigid dependence: the standard leaves implementation space, but one implementation is covered by a patent | Can be circumvented, substituted, or cross-licensed |
| Improvement Part | Weak dependence: the standard does not require it, but an optimization is covered by a patent | Can be circumvented or independently developed |
| Decorative Part | No dependence: unrelated to the standard | Conventional patent management |
Key insight: SEP constraints are concentrated at the “Standard Part” tier, but the “Standard Part” is only one part of the technology system. The Core Part, Improvement Part, and Decorative Part tiers contain substantial room for circumvention and substitution.
III. Four Paths to Reduce SEP Dependence
Path One: At the Standard Part Level — Essentiality Assessment and Rate Governance
For Standard Part SEPs that cannot be circumvented, the parts-based methodology helps enterprises:
- Assess essentiality: Is the SEP truly essential? Or can it be circumvented?
- Assess rate reasonableness: Does the SEP’s rate match its essentiality?
- Assess pool coverage: Is the SEP in a pool? Is the pool rate reasonable?
- Assess alternatives: Are there other standard versions or implementation methods that can circumvent it?
Case: A 5G SEP is declared essential, but after parts-based decomposition it is found that the technical feature in the standard document is “optional” rather than “mandatory,” and implementers may choose other solutions. The essentiality of the SEP is questionable, and the enterprise can use this to negotiate a lower rate.
Path Two: At the Core Part Level — Alternative Path Design
For Core Parts where the standard leaves implementation space, the parts-based methodology helps enterprises:
- Identify standard space: What implementation methods does the standard allow?
- Identify patent coverage: Which implementation methods are covered by patents?
- Design alternative paths: Choose implementation methods not covered by patents;
- Develop independently: Develop independent patents for alternative paths.
Case: A power optimization circuit in a 5G baseband chip is covered by a patent, but the standard allows multiple power management methods. Through parts-based decomposition, an enterprise can choose an implementation method that is not covered and circumvent the patent.
Path Three: At the Standards Development Level — Proactive Layout
For standards that have not yet been finalized (such as humanoid robot interface standards), the parts-based methodology helps enterprises:
- Identify Standard Part candidates: Which technology units may become Standard Parts?
- Assess patent layout: Does the enterprise have patents in that unit?
- Submit standards proposals: Submit the enterprise’s technical solution to the standards organization;
- Synchronize patent layout: Lay out patents while submitting standards proposals, forming de facto SEPs.
Case: An enterprise owns a “joint torque feedback frame format” patent and submits that format as a standards proposal during standards development. If adopted, the patent becomes a SEP, and the enterprise shifts from “licensee” to “licensor.”
Path Four: At the Full-Spectrum Level — Cross-Licensing and Defense
For SEPs that cannot be circumvented, the parts-based methodology helps enterprises:
- Identify standard implementation patents: What patents does the enterprise own that may be used when implementing the standard?
- Identify saving patents: What patents does the enterprise own that reduce the cost of implementing the standard?
- Build cross-licensing leverage: Use standard implementation patents and saving patents to exchange for SEP licenses;
- Reduce net licensing expenditure: Reduce net expenditure through cross-licensing.
IV. Differences Between the Parts-Based Methodology and Traditional SEP Management
| Dimension | Traditional SEP management | Parts-based methodology |
|---|---|---|
| Starting point | Declared SEP list | Parts-based decomposition of the technology system |
| Perspective | Passively accepting standard constraints | Actively managing standard dependence |
| Scope | Only SEPs | Covers SEPs, standard implementation patents, and saving patents |
| Strategy | Negotiation, joining pools, litigation | Essentiality assessment, alternative paths, standards layout, cross-licensing |
| Goal | Reduce licensing fees | Reduce standard dependence and enhance technological autonomy |
| Result | Passive payment | Active management; may shift from licensee to licensor |
V. Special Opportunities in the Humanoid Robot Field
Humanoid robot standards are still being developed, and interface standards have not yet been finalized. This provides a window for “reducing SEP dependence”:
| Opportunity | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Standards not yet finalized | Enterprises can influence the direction of standards through proposals |
| Interface standards blank | There is no unified standard yet for joint drive interfaces or safety communication protocols |
| Cross-domain integration | Motion control, communications, AI, and safety intersect, and SEP boundaries are unclear |
| Opaque declaration mechanisms | ISO and IEC declaration mechanisms are incomplete, and the proportion of undeclared SEPs is high |
| Many SMEs | They lack SEP management capabilities and need the parts-based methodology even more |
Critical window: 2026–2028. If enterprises complete Standard Part identification, alternative path design, and standards proposal layout during this period, they can take the initiative after humanoid robot standards are finalized.
VI. Implications for HRPP
HRPP should incorporate “reducing SEP dependence” into patent pool design:
| Dimension | Traditional patent pool | What HRPP can learn |
|---|---|---|
| Pool goal | Package SEPs and collect licensing fees | Reduce members’ SEP dependence and enhance technological autonomy |
| Pool design | Include declared SEPs | Also cover standard implementation patents and saving patents |
| Licensing strategy | License under FRAND | Layered licensing + cross-licensing + alternative paths |
| Standards strategy | Follow standards | Actively participate in standards development and lay out Standard Parts |
| Member services | Licensing negotiations | Parts-based decomposition, essentiality assessment, alternative path design |
| Governance goal | Rate governance | Standard dependence governance |
Core recommendation: HRPP should not only “package SEPs,” but should also “govern standard dependence.” Through the parts-based methodology, it can help member enterprises identify rigid dependencies, design alternative paths, lay out standards proposals, and build cross-licensing leverage, shifting from “passively accepting standard constraints” to “actively managing standard dependence.”
VII. Boundaries and Limitations
The parts-based methodology cannot:
- Change SEPs that are already mandatory and unavoidable in a standard;
- Replace a court’s final determination of essentiality;
- Guarantee that an alternative path is feasible (technical verification is required);
- Guarantee that a standards proposal will be adopted;
- Eliminate all SEP licensing fees.
But it can:
- Identify which dependencies are rigid and which can be circumvented;
- Design alternative paths to reduce dependence on specific SEPs;
- Through standards proposals, turn enterprise technology into SEPs;
- Build cross-licensing leverage to reduce net licensing expenditure;
- Help enterprises take the initiative in standards development.
VIII. Data Sources and Update Time
- ETSI IPR database: 5G, Wi-Fi, and video SEP declarations.
- IEEE SA: Wi-Fi SEP declarations.
- ISO/IEC: patent declaration mechanisms.
- 3GPP standard documents: 5G NR, LTE, C-V2X.
- IPlytics: SEP essentiality assessment.
- LexisNexis: SEP essentiality assessment.
- Baron & Pohlmann: SEP-standard mapping methodology.
- Chengdu Yuxing Patent Agency: Patent Parts methodology.
- Zhuanzhi Think Tank: humanoid robot patent analysis.
- Industry media: IAM, ip fray, IPWatchdog.
- Last updated: 2026-09-16
IX. Related Articles
- “SEP Essentiality Assessment Methodology: Chengdu Yuxing’s Parts-Based Methodology Is Better Suited for Assessment”
- “How Does Chengdu Yuxing’s Parts-Based Methodology Discover Undeclared Essential Patents?”
- “The Full Spectrum of Standard-Related Patents: SEPs, Standard Implementation Patents, and Standard Technology Saving Patents”
- “Management Framework for the Full Spectrum of Standard-Related Patents: A Parts-Based Method from SEPs to Saving Patents”
- “Royalty Stacking Analysis: Cumulative Rates for 5G Phones, Automobiles, and IoT”
- “Humanoid Robot-Related Standards and SEP Layout (2026): Integration Paths in a Fragmented Landscape”
- “FRAND Principles: The Lifeline of Patent Pools”
FAQ
Q1: Can the parts-based methodology help enterprises completely escape SEPs?
A: It cannot completely escape them, but it can manage standard dependence. It identifies which dependencies are rigid and which can be circumvented, helping enterprises design alternative paths, lay out standards proposals, and build cross-licensing leverage.
Q2: What is “standard dependence management”?
A: It is a shift from “passively accepting standard constraints” to “actively managing standard dependence,” including essentiality assessment, alternative path design, standards proposal layout, and cross-licensing.
Q3: What is the difference between the parts-based methodology and traditional SEP management?
A: Traditional management starts from the declared SEP list and negotiates passively; the parts-based methodology starts from the technology system and proactively identifies dependencies, designs alternatives, and lays out standards.
Q4: What special opportunities exist in the humanoid robot field?
A: Standards are still being developed, and interface standards have not yet been finalized. 2026–2028 is a critical window for reducing SEP dependence and laying out standards proposals.
Q5: How can HRPP apply the parts-based methodology?
A: HRPP should incorporate “reducing SEP dependence” into patent pool design and help member enterprises identify rigid dependencies, design alternative paths, lay out standards proposals, and build cross-licensing leverage.
Zhuanzhi Think Tank OPC Research Institute
Chengdu Zhuanzhi Lihu Digital Technology Co., Ltd.
Chengdu Yuxing Patent Agency (General Partnership)
September 2026
