Snap Sues Access Advance Over VDP Pool Licensing Rates

This case represents a critical test for the VDP pool’s attempt to consolidate licensing for modern codecs like AV1. If the UK court agrees to set a global FRAND rate, it could cap potential licensing revenue for patent holders and shift the power dynamic between pool administrators and streaming platforms. The inclusion of AV1 in this dispute is particularly significant, as it marks the first major legal confrontation over an open-source codec within a commercial patent pool. For the broader ecosystem, the ruling will likely determine whether patent pools can effectively enforce royalties on streaming software or if specialized codec litigation will remain fragmented. Watch for the court's decision on whether to set a rate for AV1 exclusively or the entire VDP portfolio.

The VDP pool was launched by Access Advance to address the software side of the streaming market, distinct from its traditional hardware-focused HEVC Advance pool. While the HEVC mandate was historically tied to physical chipsets and devices, the VDP pool represents an effort to collect royalties from content distributors and platform providers using codecs like HEVC and AV1. Per IAM Media in early 2026, the streaming industry has resisted these 'double-dipping' attempts, arguing that licensing should occur at the hardware level rather than the distribution level. This tension is heightened by the industry's shift toward AV1, which was originally developed by the Alliance for Open Media (AOM) to be royalty-free.

Legal precedents for setting global FRAND rates in the UK were solidified by the landmark Unwired Planet v. Huawei decision, which established the UK's jurisdiction to determine worldwide licensing rates. According to a June 2026 report from Foss Patents, this jurisdictional advantage has made London a preferred venue for implementers like Snap seeking to avoid the variable rates associated with individual bilateral negotiations or aggressive pool structures. Access Advance has attempted to mitigate these challenges by securing major licensees; per an Access Advance press release in May 2026, the company successfully added Roku and several Chinese manufacturers to its roster before Meta joined the pool.

Simultaneously, the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board remains a secondary battleground for streaming patent validity. While Snap has partnered with Hisense to challenge Nokia’s codec patents through Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions, many of these challenges were denied institution in early 2026. This indicates a tightening legal environment where streaming platforms must either prove patent invalidity or negotiate within the frameworks established by patent pools, making the outcome of the Snap v. Dolby UK case a pivotal moment for digital video economics.