SEP licensing conversations usually start with a declared patent pool and a royalty ask. But no one in the room can quickly confirm how many of those patents are actually essential, or how many apply to the specific products being licensed. That gap is where years of disputes and millions in legal fees tend to live.

Declaration data was built for compliance, not accuracy. Nobody independently checks whether a declared patent is truly essential before it enters the pool, which means licensors and licensees often negotiate without shared, verifiable data on what is actually implemented.

In this webinar, GreyB explains how a four-stage, AI-assisted methodology closes that gap, turning a declared pool into a defensible view of what is genuinely essential, implemented, and worth negotiating over.

You’ll get answers to

• Why declaration data alone can’t show true patent essentiality
• Why manual claim charting breaks down once a portfolio reaches real scale
• What “negotiating in a fog” means, and why neither side usually has implementation data
• How GreyB’s four-stage methodology builds taxonomy, tags features, and generates defensible insight
• What separates foundational, supporting, peripheral, and non-implemented features in a product line
• How AI-based claim mapping is checked, corrected, and confidence-scored by human experts
• How portfolio strengthening flips the essentiality question to expose prior art and validity risk
• Why only 57% of a declared LTE pool applied to LTE Cat-1 devices in GreyB’s own study

Join the webinar to see how declared portfolios can be checked against real product implementation before the next licensing conversation.

We’ll show how patents are mapped to a structured technology taxonomy, how AI and human review work together to confirm true essentiality, and how licensing teams can move from arguing about pool size to arguing about evidence.