Exclusive: Dolby-backed Opus pool reveals royalty demands

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

Exclusive: Dolby-backed Opus pool reveals royalty demands

AdobeStock_482647355 (1).jpeg

The Vectis IP pool will charge €15c per unit for access to patents covering the Opus audio technology standard

Licensing firm Vectis IP, backed by Dolby and research group Fraunhofer, launched a new patent pool for the Opus audio technology standard today, January 16.

The pool licence offers access to more than 300 patents owned by Dolby and Fraunhofer at a rate of €15c ($16c) per unit with an annual cap of €15 million.

Licensees who sign up before October this year will pay a lower rate of €10c per unit, subject to an annual cap of €10 million.

The pool will not seek any royalties from licensees who sign up before October for any historic use of the standard.

The royalties charged to licensees who sign up after October will date to January 1, 2023.

The Opus standard was developed by programmers at Skype, Mozilla, and the Xiph.Org Foundation.

These organisations made a commitment to license the tech on an open-access, royalty-free basis.

None of Vectis, Dolby, or Fraunhofer were part of the standardisation process for Opus, which was carried out by the Internet Engineering Task Force.

Giustino de Sanctis, CEO of Vectis IP, told Managing IP that the original Opus developers’ royalty-free commitment didn’t cover all of the patents essential to the standard.

De Sanctis said the pool would target licensees involved in the manufacture of tablets, PCs, and smartphones.

Asked whether implementers would react negatively to being asked to pay for access to Opus technology, he said Vectis would work to educate the market.

“If the market has a certain expectation, you have to face that expectation.”

He acknowledged a comparison with the auto industry, which initially resisted pressure to license cellular patents.

“Automakers never thought this was a problem.

“It will be part of our job to go out there and explain this reality,” he said.

De Sanctis said the pool had been involved in discussions with potential licensors since an original call for patents last September.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Three successive wins have got the firm eyeing additional opportunities as ITC work booms
While many firms remain focused on generative AI, recent hires and practice launches suggest the next battle may be for lawyers who understand how AI is moving into the physical world
The explosion of data centres has prompted patent pool operators to create new licensing opportunities
The court struck out copyright claims brought by Ladbrokes owner Entain, saying that ownership details should have been completed before litigation began
Düsseldorf has overtaken Munich as the UPC's busiest division, while firms including Winston Taylor, Clifford Chance, and Hoyng Rokh Monegier featured in disputes involving Abbott, Essity, Amazon and Hurom
The managing partner gave up an equity partnership track in New York to build a practice in India. More than a decade later, she discusses entrepreneurship, leadership, and why women should not wait before taking the next step
Vice presidents Shinya Jitsuhiro and Hirohisa Suzuki discuss litigation trends in Japan, recruitment challenges and clients’ international expansion
IP boutique Petillion represented IKEA in the dispute, which concerned the use of the multinational’s trademarks in an immigration-focused campaign. The firm tells Managing IP how it secured the outcome
The Pizzeys-Griffith Hack integration was designed to create a stronger Australian IP platform but with several ex-Pizzeys principals now gone, the deal's success may depend on where clients place their trust
Thomas Lonsdale and Hsu Min Chung of HGF explore the practical impact of the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal’s decision in G1/25 and its interplay with G1/24
Gift this article