Tuesday, 25 August 2026

© R Saha

Moon, Mars and Minerals – Magic Menu for Mankind

R Saha

Paradigm change

The launch of the orbital rocket Vikram I by the Indian company SkyRoot Aerospace has placed India among the top few nations who are in the business of space economy. A smooth transition from the “old space” to “new space” paradigm has begun and soon we will be witness to extraction of minerals from Moon, Mars, and asteroids. The New Space paradigm is characterized by growing private investment, although government participation remains essential. It promises lower launch costs, more reliable launches and outer space technologies, shorter investment horizons, greater use of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components, miniaturization and extensive utilization of Low Earth Orbit (LEO). However, intensive exploitation of LEO is also creating a serious challenge: increasing space debris, which could threaten future launches and long-term space operations. The new paradigm portends new technology and economic global order.

It is reported that Rolls Royce has got funding to develop miniature nuclear reactor for Moon base. Merck is joining hands with Varda Space Industries to create pharmaceuticals in space.

Outer space treaties

All the outer space explorations and economic activities are governed by some internationally agreed treaties and agreements. Outer Space Treaty signed in 1967, and Moon Agreement signed in 1979 presently regulating exploration, exploitation, utilization of outer space and celestial bodies, do not provide a clear answer to “who will own extracted minerals from Moon, Mars and other celestial bodies?”

The above two treaties are the products of the cold war when only few nations were active in space exploration. The other signatory nations were at the nascent stage of space exploration. UN did play a balancing role to protect the interest of humanity in the long term by declaring that no national sovereignty claims can be made on outer space and celestial bodies. Most signatories were happy with the broad considerations regarding rights of humanity built into these agreements.

Now that many countries especially India and China have their own well developed space programmes and technologies, they need to inject their aspirations in new and/ or amended treaties as the new space paradigm matures.   

Artemis Accords

The Artemis Accords, an initiative of the US government through NASA, postulates that signatory countries can claim ownership of minerals extracted from Moon, Mars, asteroids and other celestial bodies. Only eight countries were the original signatories in 2020. Now, the total number of members including India is 69. China and Russia are not members so far and may not become members in the foreseeable future driven by everchanging geopolitical situations.  This initiative is on expected lines as USA is the only country which brought Moon rocks and soil to earth through human missions to Moon starting from 1969. Out of a total of 10 missions bringing Moon rocks to earth, 6 were from USA (all human missions), 3 from Russia and 1 from China. There seems to be reasonable knowledge about lunar minerals to plan large scale extraction. Quite obviously, USA appears to have the best knowledge of Moon minerals and expertise for extracting minerals on Moon. This accord cannot be categorized as hard law, so it does not create any legal obligation on its parties. However, it has sowed seeds for new alliances among several space faring nations.

It is reported that a Japanese company iSpace was granted a license to extract resources on the Moon, which it will sell to NASA under Artemis Accords. This deal suggests that NASA must be a partner in extraction and the end use of minerals. The signs of monopolization and private rights are visible.

New aspirations for presence on celestial bodies

One future objective of having permanent human presence on Moon will include commercial and industrial projects. Some well-known activities are (i) extraction of oxygen from lunar debris (regolith), (ii) solar farming, (iii) extraction of water and hydrogen and (iv) extraction of minerals including critical minerals and others for use as building materials.

Activities on Moon are  the key to paving the way to human presence on Mars using resources on Moon. This would reduce the transportation cost of such resources to Mars and some asteroids. All the above activities will predominantly and inherently technological endeavours.

Ownership of extracted minerals

What does ownership of extracted minerals mean? It is likely that ownership will be in terms of extracting, storing, processing, using, selling, transporting, the resources.  It seems that the ownership rights over extracted minerals will rest with the agency extracting the mineral. IP rights will automatically be subsumed although IP rights over extracted minerals from earth are not supported by IP laws of several countries. To start with, it may be noted that it will be extremely difficult to bring minerals from say, Moon to earth. Hence, the extracted minerals will have to be stored and processed on Moon for final use.

This creates new legal questions. Who has jurisdiction over an extracted resource as Artemis Accords cannot be the final answer? What happens if two operators claim the same deposit? What constitutes unlawful interference? If theft or a commercial dispute occurs on the Moon, what dispute-settlement mechanism will apply?

There is also a broader issue. Space exploration is the cumulative result of scientific and technological achievements developed over decades by many nations. Launch systems, orbital operations, navigation, robotics, telecommunications, landing technology and planetary exploration have all contributed to today's capabilities.

Future rules governing space resources should therefore recognize this cumulative technological heritage rather than rewarding only the first commercial extractor. Weightages may be attached to who orbited and/or landed before the introduction of new rights.

Issue of sovereignty

Imagine a future scenario when a country or a group of countries having hefty financial resources, technology and know-how in extracting minerals on Moon, starts claiming national sovereignty or appropriation rights over the primary source like mountains, land, craters etc. Such a situation may arise once the competition starts rising (may be after 50 to 100 years). A basic global understanding must emerge before the first commercial extraction takes place. A new interpretation of existing treaties will be needed to accommodate aspirations of all spacefaring nations along with those interested only in reaping the fruits. The future scenario appears uncertain, but each space faring nation must protect its interests in exploiting resource of celestial bodies, now and in future, for the benefit its citizens and the global community.

Outlook

India is in the front in exercising its right of ownership on extracted (mined) minerals on celestial bodies with its successful Moon and Mars missions. It may be remembered that India was fast to set up its first research centre in Antarctica keeping in mind its rightful ownership, if agreed by comity of nations, at any stage in future.  She must remain at the centre stage of the politics of space regulation and governance for at least the next 100 years and must not lose the advantage built over years.

The race for space resources is no longer merely science fiction. Technology, private investment and international partnerships are steadily bringing commercial space activities closer to reality. The Moon, Mars and asteroids may one day provide a new menu of resources for mankind. The challenge is to ensure that this “magic menu” benefits humanity, while rewarding innovation, investment and responsible exploration. The important thing to watch is who will help write the rules governing what happens after we get there.

The nations that write the rules for the resources of space today may well write the economic history of mankind for centuries to come. Decisions made today will shape the governance of space and determine how the wealth of the cosmos is shared in the centuries ahead.


Thursday, 1 January 2026

Are Standard Essential Patents Barriers to Innovation by SMEs and Startups?

© R Saha

Small and medium enterprises (SMEs), including startups operating in standard-driven sectors such as telecommunication equipment, artificial intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IoT), autonomous vehicles, mobile communications, Wi-Fi, computers and laptops, medical devices, drones and fintech, face disproportionate challenges in navigating the Standard Essential Patent (SEP) ecosystem. Compliance with global technical standards is a prerequisite for market acceptance, interoperability, scalability, and integration with existing hardware and software platforms. However, access to the patents essential to these standards is typically possible only through licensing from SEP holders, creating structural disadvantages for smaller firms. 

Structural Disadvantages Faced by SMEs SMEs are at an inherent disadvantage in SEP-related negotiations due to several factors:

 • Minimal involvement in standard-setting activities 
    Small firms rarely participate in the work of Standards Setting Organizations        (SSOs), limiting both influence and early visibility into evolving technical and         licensing frameworks. 

• Limited awareness of standards and SEPs 
    Many enterprises lack foundational knowledge of standards and the role played     by SEPs in governing  standardized technologies. 

• Absence of proprietary SEP portfolios 
    Unlike large technology firms, SMEs generally do not hold SEPs, eliminating            opportunities for cross-licensing and weakening their negotiating position. 

• Challenge in mapping SEP to standards and product 
     Linking SEP claims to a product requires specialized legal and engineering             expertise that is often in short supply in small firms. 

Difficulty identifying relevant SEPs 
      Patent documents do not disclose  whether they are standard-essential,                 making identification both complex and resource-intensive. 

• Limited understanding of licensing processes 
    SEP licensing involves sophisticated legal, economic, and technical assessments     that SMEs are ill-equipped to handle. 

• High cost of assembling negotiation expertise 
    Raising an experienced in-house or external negotiating team imposes financial     burdens beyond the  reach of most startups and is difficult too. 

As a result, SMEs become heavily reliant on SEP holders—predominantly large multinational corporations—creating significant power imbalances during negotiations. 

Imbalances in SEP Licensing and FRAND Limitations 
Although SEP licensing is governed by Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) commitments, the practical operation of this framework is fraught with uncertainty. Key FRAND concepts like fair and reasonable, lack precise definitions, and many jurisdictions—including India—do not have specialized mechanisms to resolve SEP licensing disputes efficiently. Further, SSOs do not independently verify whether declared patents are genuinely essential to a standard. This shifts the burden of essentiality assessment entirely onto licensees, requiring extensive technical and legal analysis. SEP holders may exploit this asymmetry by demanding excessive royalties or imposing restrictive licensing conditions, knowing that smaller firms lack the capacity to challenge such claims effectively. 

Challenges in Assessing Essentiality and Validity 
Determining whether a patent is truly essential, valid, and infringed is particularly challenging for SMEs. For example, over 100,000 5G patent disclosures were reported in 2023. Although many of these patents may not be granted and some of the granted patents may not be SEP. Navigating this landscape under a cloud of uncertainties requires expertise and resources that many firms simply do not possess. Consequently, SMEs face risks of inadvertent infringement, over-licensing, or excessive royalty payments. Some studies indicate that a significant proportion of declared 5G SEPs may not, in fact, be essential—an assertion strongly disputed by SEP holders. 

The navigation complexity is further amplified by the existence of a large number of technical standards documents which may run into tens of thousands. Patent documents themselves provide no indication of SEP status. Establishing essentiality requires detailed claim-by-claim analysis against technical standards, often necessitating independent expert review. While reliance on SEP holders’ declarations may reduce costs, it exposes licensees to strategic information asymmetry. 

Gaps in Standards Knowledge and Education 
The ability to develop globally competitive products depends on a sound understanding of international standards. However, awareness of standards and their legal implications remains limited, particularly in low- and middle-income economies. One contributing factor is the lack of formal education on standards and standardization processes in engineering and technical curricula. Although SSOs maintain databases of declared SEPs, these repositories remain underutilized due to limited awareness and accessibility. It has been reported that a substantial number of mobile communication standards can be implemented by directly utilizing SEPs. 

 Limited Representation in Standard-Setting Organizations 

SMEs have minimal representation within SSOs, restricting their ability to influence technical directions or licensing policies. This lack of participation also limits their understanding of licensing commitments, policy debates, and emerging compliance obligations discussed within these forums. Litigation Risks In the absence of clear and affordable licensing pathways, SMEs are particularly vulnerable to patent litigation. The financial and operational burden of litigation can be catastrophic for smaller firms. In some cases, litigation is used strategically by SEP holders as leverage to secure licensing terms that exceed FRAND expectations. 

Innovation Pressure and Opportunity 

Despite these challenges, access to SEPs remains essential for innovation. Licensing enables firms to build upon cutting-edge standardized technologies and develop differentiated products. SMEs operating at the frontier of standardized technologies can leverage SEPs as platforms for further innovation rather than mere compliance tools. 

The Way Forward 

One potential solution is the creation of a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) through which SMEs could collectively access standards documentation, identify declared SEPs, and develop shared technical and legal expertise. Such an initiative would require investment in skilled personnel and access to standards databases and could benefit from targeted government financial support. 

Additionally, there is a pressing need for India to develop a clear, enforceable SEP licensing framework, aligned with but more precise than existing FRAND principles. Such a framework should be binding on SEP holders operating in India and designed to balance innovation incentives with fair market access. The idea is not to regulate licensing but to enable the licensing process to create a win-win situation for all the people concerned and utilize new technologies. 

Standards and SEP literacy and awareness would go a long way in easing the present situation.  Standards being so critical, it should be integrated into engineering and technology curricula. More companies need to become familiar with functioning of SSOs and their intellectual property rights (IPR) policies. 

 SEPs are not anti-innovation like other patents. In fact, they enable global interoperability and put you in the orbit of cutting-edge technologies from where you can see the future and invent. SEPs are indispensable for innovation in standards driven technologies. There is a need to evolve some policy mechanism for facilitating SEP licensing in India. By targeted policy intervention, transparent licensing mechanisms, and institutional support, SEPs would lead to new technological and market opportunities.