Monday, 13 July 2026

FRAND licensing needs a taxonomy: valuation absent context is misvaluation

The World Intellectual Property Organization's recent report on SEP valuation methodologies provides a useful overview of comparable licences, bottom-up valuation and top-down approaches. However, in my view, the most important issue in FRAND valuation remains underexplored: the need to distinguish between fundamentally different categories of licensing and commercial arrangements.

This article argues that much FRAND analysis suffers from false commensurability. Bilateral licences, cross-licences, collective licensing platforms, patent pools, paid-up lump-sum settlements and royalty-free regimes are frequently converted into common metrics such as ad valorem rates or dollar-per-unit royalties and then treated as directly comparable. In the process, critical commercial context can be lost in translation.

Using examples including Nokia's agreements with Apple and Microsoft, Avanci's $32-per-vehicle automotive licensing model, public licensing programmes from Qualcomm and InterDigital, and recent FRAND decisions including Samsung v ZTE, Optis v Apple and InterDigital v Lenovo, I examine how royalty metrics, payment structures, bargaining conditions and strategic objectives can materially affect negotiated outcomes.

I also discuss the risks associated with cross-licence unpacking, portfolio-strength-ratio methodologies, patent counting, manufactured comparables, and the tendency to treat complex licensing agreements as if they can be translated mechanically into equivalent royalty rates.

My central thesis is simple:

The first question in FRAND valuation should not be "Which methodology should we use?" but "What exactly are we trying to value?"

The resulting rates may appear objective and comparable, but instead still reflect the bargaining asymmetries, strategic objectives, risk allocations and other distortions that shaped the original deal.

Download the full article from SSRN, here.

Wednesday, 8 July 2026

US Department of Justice Remarks Regarding IP and Global Competition

On July 8, 2026, the US Department of Justice issued a press release containing the remarks of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Dina Kallay at the Hudson Institute Forum for Intellectual Property.  The remarks describe the US Department of Justice’s position on numerous cases in which the Department has filed a statement of interest.  Notably, the remarks also address IP and global competition:

Intellectual Property Enforcement Strengthens Global Competition

Now that we have discussed an example of our domestic IP dance, I want to turn to an international example which demonstrates that strong protection of IP rights benefits robust market competition worldwide.

Each year the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) issues a Special 301 Report, as required by Congress, which is a review of the global state of IP rights protection and enforcement.[29] Internationally, failure to enforce IP laws as required under the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights[30] (“WTO TRIPS Agreement”) creates barriers to trade that negatively impact U.S. companies and consumers. Without robust IP protection and enforcement globally, American innovators cannot “defend their rights when their IP is stolen or infringed” and, consequently, the benefits of that IP cannot flow back to the United States economy.[31] Effectively, failure to enforce IP laws creates a non-tariff barrier to trade, as it can subsidize domestic industry or increase costs on foreign industry.

The recently issued 2026 Special 301 Report, highlighted several “emerging global trends [that] have the potential to improperly and unfairly harm U.S. innovators” related to patents and standards.  The Intellectual Property and Standards section of the report[32] underscores the importance of IP protection to U.S. leadership in developing next-generation technologies, and states unequivocally that American innovation leadership, economic competitiveness, and national security are threatened by proposals or actions that undermine the effective enforcement of patent rights.” The Report went on to identify three emerging global trends that improperly harms U.S. innovators:

  • Court rulings called “anti-suit injunctions” that bar U.S. companies from enforcing their patents anywhere else in the world; 
  • Judicial or administrative procedures that compel innovators to grant, without their consent, global licenses to patented technologies on terms set by the court or the government; and
  • Judicial or legislative efforts to prohibit the seeking or availability of injunctions against patent infringement, the core remedy that allows patent holders to enforce their rights. 

The Report’s findings dovetail with the antitrust policy principles I highlighted earlier, including the importance of robust intellectual property protection both domestically and globally; an unfettered intellectual property marketplace; and the unhindered availability of injunctions and other remedies against infringement. They are also consistent with globally recognized WTO treaty obligations.[33] So it’s a case where, while arriving from different angles, antitrust and international trade policies converge around the same principles.   

The full remarks are available, here. 

Tuesday, 16 June 2026

Join Online: 14th Intellectual Property and Competition Forum The Global Patent Chess Game: International Patent Strategy in a Fragmented World Order 23–24 June 2026 | Munich & Online

 

The 14th IP & Competition Forum offers a series of highly topical online sessions on the changing architecture of global patent litigation, enforcement, licensing and competition policy.

Register for ALL ONLINE sessions here:
https://www.oxfora.org/webinar-14th-forum-live/

 


Injunctions at the Centre of Gravity in Global Patent Strategy
23 June 2026 | 08:30 London time

Moderator
Otto Licks, Founding Partner, Licks Attorneys

Speakers
Dr Thomas Dreiser, Chief IP Litigation Counsel, EMEA, Huawei
Chris Longman, Vice President, Legal Counsel, Qualcomm
Tom Brown, Head of IP Litigation, Dell
Lara Rogers, Head of IP Disputes, Amazon


Long-Arm Jurisdiction in Patent Disputes after BSH Hausgeräte v. Electrolux
23 June 2026 | 09:30 London time

Moderator
Dr Constanze Krenz, Partner, DLA Piper

Speakers
Dr Corin Gittinger, Partner, Freshfields
Alessandro Orsi, VP Legal, Associate General Counsel IP, HP
Dr Clemens Heusch, VP, Head of Global Litigation and Disputes, Nokia
Gerhard Tschiedel, IP Transactions Manager, Giesecke+Devrient


Competition Perspectives, LNGs, Standards & Patent Licensing
23 June 2026 | 15:00 London time

Moderator
Le Chen, Senior Director, IP Policy & Dispute Resolution

Speakers
Paul Bridgeland, Policy Officer, DG Competition, European Commission
Dr Felix Engelsing, Director, Bundeskartellamt
Dr Thomas Buchholz, Senior Expert Digital IP, BSH Hausgeräte GmbH
Alexander Prenter, Policy Director, Fair Standards Alliance
Collette Rawnsley, VP, IP Policy & Advocacy, Nokia


China: Litigation, Licensing & Global Influence
24 June 2026 | 07:30 London time

Keynote
Dr Juan He — Judge, Intellectual Property Court, Supreme People’s Court of China

Moderator
Jing Xu, Partner, King & Wood

Speakers
Na Wei, GM of Corporate Business Development & IP Strategy, Xiaomi
Vivienne Li, Head of Patent Licensing, ByteDance
Collette Rawnsley, VP, IP Policy & Advocacy, Nokia
Dylan Li, Head of European IPR Department, Huawei


Courts & Rate Setting
24 June 2026 | 11:00 London time

Keynote
Fabian Hoffmann — Judge, German Supreme Court

Moderator
Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Competition and Policy Counsel, Access Advance

Speakers
Shuang Cheng, Cellular Licensing Lead, Xiaomi
Michele Baccelli, Partner, Hoffmann Eitle


UPC and EPO Case Law: Convergence, Divergence and Practical Consequences — Novelty, Inventive Step & Added Matter
24 June 2026 | 14:00 London time

Practitioner Speakers
Dr Natalia Wegner, Partner, Carpmaels & Ransford
Bernhard Thum, Partner, Thum & Partner

Judge Speakers
Dr Stefan Wilhelm — Judge, Unified Patent Court
Dr Christoph Schober — Judge, Unified Patent Court
Dr Kemal Bengi — Chair of the Board of Appeal 3.5.05, European Patent Office


Judges’ Perspectives on International Understanding in Patent Disputes
24 June 2026 | 15:45 London time

Speakers
Prof. Peter Meier-Beck — Presiding Judge (ret.) & UPC Advisory Committee, German Supreme Court / Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf
Judge Victor Torres — Judge, Court of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Dr Juan He — Judge, Intellectual Property Court, Supreme People’s Court of China


These sessions address some of the most important questions in international patent enforcement today: injunctions as tools of global leverage, cross-border patent enforcement, long-arm jurisdiction, forum strategy, SEPs, FRAND, standards, patent licensing, competition policy, China’s growing influence, rate setting, UPC and EPO case law, and international judicial understanding in patent disputes.

The Forum brings together judicial perspectives from the German Supreme Court, the Unified Patent Court, the European Patent Office Boards of Appeal, the Supreme People’s Court of China, the Court of Rio de Janeiro and the Landgericht Munich, alongside leading voices from industry, patent offices, competition authorities, private practice and academia.

Patrons include: Licks Attorneys, Hogan Lovells, Nokia, RPX, Freshfields and Vossius Brinkhof.

More information: https://www.oxfora.org
Contact: info@oxfirst.com

FRAND commitments include no right to a platform licence

In my recent article, Are patent pool royalty rates FRAND?, I argued that patent pool and platform rates are structurally unsuited to serve as benchmarks for bilateral FRAND licensing. That analysis focused on pricing (i.e. royalty rates) — specifically, on the risk of inferring inapplicable rates from fundamentally different licensing arrangements.

This article addresses a logically prior question now before the England and Wales (“UK”) Supreme Court in Tesla v InterDigital / Avanci: Before any court determines whether a platform licence is FRAND, does it have jurisdiction and is there any entitlement to have those terms determined in court?

That question is not merely procedural. It goes to the meaning and scope of FRAND.

The point is not that platform rates are “sub-FRAND” or otherwise deficient. On the contrary, they may be entirely FRAND within their own commercial context. The point is that FRAND operates through different processes in different licensing structures, and those processes should not be conflated.

FRAND does not necessarily include a right to a platform licence. Recognising that preserves both the integrity of the ETSI undertaking and the legitimacy of alternative licensing institutions developed by the market.

My full 5-page article can be downloaded here.

Tuesday, 2 June 2026

Are patent pool royalty rates FRAND?

This question sits at the intersection of licensing practice, competition policy, and judicial interpretation. Courts, regulators, and industry participants often look to patent pools for guidance in determining FRAND[1] rates. Yet doing so risks a fundamental mistake. Patent pool rates — whether characterised as FRAND, sub‑FRAND,[2] or otherwise — are structurally unsuited to serve as benchmarks for bilateral licensing.

I asked several attendees this headline question at the recent Patents and Standards conference in London — in informal conversations during coffee breaks. I also posed the question to fellow panellists there in our session entitled Platforms and Pools: Where Next?  While Sisvel panellist Matteo Sabattini was proud to inform us emphatically that courts had found patent pool Sisvel’s rates FRAND, most others answered equivocally.

This question is also under consideration by the UK Supreme Court. In December 2023, Tesla raised proceedings seeking, among other requests, a declaration of FRAND terms for a license to SEPs in the Avanci 5G Platform. Before opining on FRAND terms, the UKSC must determine if those are applicable in that case.

There’s extensive effective and efficient SEP licensing based on FRAND commitments — bilaterally and in patent pools. However, pool rates are typically below bilateral FRAND rates for various reasons. For example, pooling is well-known to reduce transaction costs and so these savings can be passed on in lower royalty rates.

Pooling rates that might be considered sub-FRAND in bilateral licensing shouldn’t be deemed a breach of SEP owners’ FRAND commitments. Voluntarily offering relatively low royalty rates non-discriminately is not harmful to any licensee. Similarly, unilaterally offering licensing to all royalty-free is also harmless.

As patent pool terms are generally regarded as FRAND it should be accepted that the range of FRAND rates might be very large, given the various other differences in licensing structure and terms versus bilateral licensing.

Alternatively, perhaps Standard-Setting Organisations (SSOs) and others should regard collective licensing including patent pooling as another, distinctly different  kind of licensing arrangement to bilateral licensing — just as royalty-free is already recognised as distinct from FRAND licensing by some SSOs?[3]

Either way, patent pool rates are inapplicable benchmarks for bilateral licensing — and vice versa — in the same way that the existence of royalty-free patent pooling should not impose that pricing as an obligation on SEP owners who choose not to join such an arrangement.[4]

My full article can be downloaded, here.

[1] Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) is generally regarded as being the same as Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND).

[2] This contentious term seems to describe rates that fall below the range that would be considered suitable FRAND benchmarks in bilateral licensing determinations. See subsequent section on UK High Court Judgment in Samsung v. ZTE.

[3] The Patent Policies of IEEE SA and ITU-T/ITU-R/ISO/IEC accommodate “without compensation”  and “free of charge”, respectively, (i.e. royalty-free) as well as RAND licensing.

[4] Bluetooth SIG participation requires reciprocal, “without compensation” (i.e. royalty‑free) cross‑licensing. Google and others have asserted that open source video codecs including VP8, VP9 and AV1 can be implemented without paying any license fees to anyone. Nevertheless, various patents that are not available royalty-free read on those standards. Google paid off pool administrator MPEG LA so that free proposition could be maintained for VP8 implementers. Sisvel offers a licensing platform for patents essential to VP9. 



Thursday, 7 May 2026

Injunctions — Perspectives from the Judiciary of Brazil Tuesday, 13 May 2026 15:00 UK | 16:00 CET

 

OxFirst is pleased to host a free webinar with Judge Victor Diz Torres, Judge at the Tribunal de Justiça do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, speaking in his private capacity.

Injunctions — Perspectives from the Judiciary of Brazil Tuesday, 13 May 2026 15:00 UK | 16:00 CET register here: https://oxfirst.com/insights-&-news/injunctions-brazil-judiciary-may-12/

The discussion will examine when Brazilian courts grant injunctive relief in patent litigation, how such orders are enforced in practice, and how courts balance exclusivity, market access and proportionality in innovation-driven disputes.

The webinar will also explore the emerging treatment of the FRAND defence in Brazil, particularly in cases involving standard-essential patents (SEPs). Key questions include licensing conduct, good faith negotiation, competition concerns and the limits of injunctive relief where FRAND commitments are raised.

This webinar forms part of the lead-up to the 14th IP & Competition Forum, taking place in Munich on 23–24 June 2026 under the theme:

The Global Patent Chess Game: International Patent Strategy in a Fragmented World

The 14th IP & Competition Forum will bring together senior judges, patent offices, competition authorities, industry leaders and scholars to discuss SEPs, injunctions, long-arm jurisdiction, patent quality and cross-border enforcement.

Register for the free webinar: https://oxfirst.com/insights-&-news/injunctions-brazil-judiciary-may-12/

More about the 14th IP & Competition Forum: www.oxfora.org

For enquiries: info@oxfirst.com

#PatentLitigation #Injunctions #SEP #FRAND #Brazil #CompetitionLaw #IntellectualProperty #PatentStrategy #OxFirst #OxFora

Monday, 4 May 2026

Guidance on Security for Agentic AI Systems

The US National Security Agency (NSA) and international partners have released guidance on Agentic Artificial Intelligence Systems.  The Press Release states:

Today, the National Security Agency (NSA) joins the Australian Signals Directorate’s Australian Cyber Security Centre (ASD’s ACSC) and others to release the Cybersecurity Information Sheet (CSI), “Careful Adoption of Agentic AI Services.”

This report is a comprehensive guide to understanding and mitigating the unique risks associated with the rise of agentic artificial intelligence (AI) within critical infrastructure, including the defense sector. The CSI highlights general security considerations for agentic AI, including the inherited risks of large language models (LLMs), increased attack surfaces, increased complexity, the evolving security landscape as the technology matures, and the need to address AI security as part of established cybersecurity paradigms. 

Unlike traditional generative AI, which typically requires human validation, agentic AI systems are designed to operate autonomously, making them a powerful tool. This presents both unprecedented opportunities and significant cybersecurity challenges organizations must address to protect national security and critical infrastructure. 

Careful Adoption of Agentic AI Services” outlines risk spaces to consider, including:

•    Privilege Risks: Over-privileged agents can amplify the impact of a single compromise.
•    Design and Configuration Risks: Insecure design and provisioning can introduce vulnerabilities. 
•    Behavior Risks: Goal misalignment, specification gaming, deceptive behavior, and emergent capabilities can lead to unexpected or undesirable outcomes.
•    Structural Risks: The interconnected nature of agentic systems increases the attack surface and complexity.
•    Accountability Risks: The opacity of agentic systems makes accountability hard to trace, complicating auditing and compliance.

Securing agentic AI systems requires proactive measures that address risks introduced by autonomy, interconnected components, and evolving capabilities. The best practices for securing agentic AI systems are divided into the following subcategories: 
•    Designing Secure Agents
•    Developing Secure Agents
•    Managing Third-Party Components
•    Deploying Agents Securing
•    Operating Agents Securely

The report recommends deploying agentic AI incrementally, continuously assessing against evolving threat models, and maintaining strong governance, explicit accountability, rigorous monitoring, and human oversight which are essential for safe and secure operation.

Organizations that use agentic AI services, including those in the defense sector, are encouraged to review this guidance and adopt the outlined cybersecurity mitigations.  

Other agencies co-sealing this CSI are the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (Cyber Centre), the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the New Zealand National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-NZ), and the United Kingdom National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-UK).

Friday, 1 May 2026

The Global Patent Chess Game Comes to Munich

OxFora’s 14th IP & Competition Forum to examine SEPs, injunctions, long-arm jurisdiction and international patent strategy

Munich, Germany — 23–24 June 2026 — As patent disputes increasingly cross borders, courts, competition authorities and patent offices are becoming central actors in the global governance of innovation. Questions once seen as technical — standard-essential patents, injunctions, FRAND, long-arm jurisdiction, global rate-setting, patent quality and cross-border enforcement — now shape market access, licensing dynamics and international technology strategy.

Against this backdrop, OxFora will convene the 14th IP & Competition Forum under the theme:

The Global Patent Chess Game: International Patent Strategy in a Fragmented World Order

The Forum will examine how international patent strategy is changing in a world where litigation in one jurisdiction can influence licensing negotiations, market entry and enforcement outcomes across many others. It will address the growing role of injunctions, the strategic use of parallel proceedings, the reach of national courts, the management of global FRAND disputes, and the interaction between patent enforcement, competition law and economics.

The programme will bring together senior judicial, regulatory, patent-office, industry and academic perspectives to discuss how legal systems are responding to these pressures and whether greater predictability is possible in international patent enforcement.

Key topics include:

SEPs — FRAND — Injunctions — Long-Arm Jurisdiction — Global Licensing — Streaming — Patent Quality — Competition Policy — International Patent Strategy

Keynote speakers and senior contributors include:

·         Prof. Meier-Beck — UPC Advisory Board; Presiding Judge, German Federal Court of Justice, ret.

·         Sir James Mellor — High Court of England & Wales

·         Dr Oliver Schoen — Regional Court of Bavaria

·         Dr Hubertus Schacht — Regional Court of Bavaria

·         Judge Fabian Hoffmann — Federal Court of Justice, Germany

·         Judge Victor Jaccoud Diz Torres — Judge, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

·         Judge Juan He — Senior Judge, Intellectual Property Court, Supreme People’s Court of China

·         European Commission — DG Competition and Legal Service

·         UKIPO, DPMA, EPO & Bundeskartellamt (German Competition Authorities)

The Forum will also include perspectives from major technology, licensing and industrial stakeholders, including Nokia, BMW, Time Warner, Volkswagen, HP, Bosch BSH Haushaltsgeräte, Canon, Panasonic, Amazon and Philips.

The Forum is supported by leading sponsors including Hogan Lovells, Nokia, Thum & Partner, Freshfields, DLA Piper, Vossius, Huawei, Xiaomi, RPX and Access Advance.

“Patent enforcement has become a matter of international strategy,” said Dr Roya Ghafele, convenor of the Forum. “Injunctions, SEPs, long-arm jurisdiction and global licensing disputes are no longer isolated legal questions. They shape market access, competition and the global economic order.”

The 14th IP & Competition Forum will take place at the DPMA, the German Patent and Trade Mark Office, in Munich on 23–24 June 2026.

Get involved:
https://www.oxfora.org
info@oxfirst.com

Media contact:
OxFora
Email: info@oxfirst.com
Website:
https://www.oxfora.org/

 

Wednesday, 15 April 2026

U.S. Treasury Department Active in Addressing Cybersecurity Issues

The U.S. Treasury Department recently issued two press releases concerning cybersecurity.  First, the Treasury Department created a cybersecurity information sharing initiative for U.S. digital assert companies.  Second, the Treasury Department sanctioned actors who stole trade secrets involving cybersecurity tools from a U.S. company.  The Press Releases are below. 

Treasury Launches Cybersecurity Information Sharing Initiative for the Digital Asset Industry

WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure Protection (OCCIP) announced a new initiative to strengthen cybersecurity across the digital asset industry. The initiative will provide timely, actionable cybersecurity information to eligible U.S. digital asset firms and industry organizations, helping them better identify, prevent, and respond to cyber threats targeting their customers and networks. The effort advances a key recommendation from the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets report, Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology.

Treasury leadership highlights the growing importance of digital asset firms to the broader financial system.

“Digital asset firms are an increasingly important part of the U.S. financial sector, and their resilience is critical to the health of the broader system,” said Luke Pettit, Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions. “By extending access to the same high-quality cybersecurity information used by traditional financial institutions, Treasury is helping promote a more secure and responsible digital asset ecosystem.”

Treasury also emphasized that cybersecurity is foundational to the future of digital finance and essential to responsible innovation.

“This initiative reflects the principles of the GENIUS Act by promoting responsible innovation grounded in strong cybersecurity and operational resilience,” said Tyler Williams, Counselor to the Secretary for Digital Assets. “As digital assets become more integrated into the financial system, access to timely and actionable cyber threat information is essential to protecting consumers and safeguarding the stability of U.S. financial markets.”

Treasury cybersecurity officials noted that the initiative responds directly to a rapidly evolving threat environment.

“Cyber threats targeting digital asset platforms are growing in frequency and sophistication,” said Cory Wilson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity. “This initiative expands access to actionable threat information that helps firms strengthen defenses, reduce risk, and respond more effectively to incidents.”

Eligible U.S. digital asset firms and industry organizations that meet Treasury’s criteria will be able to receive, at no cost, the same actionable cybersecurity information Treasury regularly shares with traditional U.S. financial institutions. Interested firms are encouraged to contact OCCIP at OCCIP-Coord@treasury.gov for more information.

 

Treasury Sanctions Exploit Broker Network for Theft and Sale of U.S. Government Cyber Tools

February 24, 2026

First-Ever Action Under the Protecting American Intellectual Property Act

WASHINGTON — Today, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated Sergey Sergeyevich Zelenyuk (Zelenyuk) and his company, Matrix LLC (doing business as Operation Zero), as well as five associated individuals and entities, for their acquisition and distribution of cyber tools harmful to U.S. national security.  Zelenyuk and Operation Zero trade in “exploits”—pieces of code or techniques that take advantage of vulnerabilities in a computer program to allow users to gain unauthorized access, steal information, or take control of an electronic device—and have offered rewards to anyone who will provide them with exploits for U.S.-built software.  Among the exploits that Operation Zero acquired were at least eight proprietary cyber tools, which were created for the exclusive use of the U.S. government and select allies and which were stolen from a U.S. company.  Operation Zero then sold those stolen tools to at least one unauthorized user.

“If you steal U.S. trade secrets, we will hold you accountable,” said Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent.  “Treasury will continue to work alongside the rest of the Trump Administration to protect sensitive American intellectual property and safeguard our national security.”

This action coincides with an investigation by the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation of Peter Williams, an Australian national and a former employee of the aforementioned U.S. company who pleaded guilty on October 29, 2025, to two counts of theft of trade secrets. 

Williams stole several proprietary cyber tools from the company between 2022 and 2025 and sold them to Operation Zero in exchange for millions of dollars paid in cryptocurrencies.

OFAC is designating Zelenyuk, Operation Zero, and the five associated individuals and entities pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13694, as further amended by E.O. 14306 (“E.O. 13694, as further amended”).  In parallel with this action, the Department of State is sanctioning Zelenyuk, Operation Zero, and an affiliated UAE company, Special Technology Services LLC FZ (STS) pursuant to the Protecting American Intellectual Property Act (PAIPA).  These are the first persons sanctioned under this law, which provides for sanctions against persons who have knowingly engaged in, or benefitted from, significant theft of trade secrets of United States persons, if the theft of such trade secrets is reasonably likely to result in, or has materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States.  Please refer to the Department of State’s press release for more information about this action under PAIPA. 

ZELENYUK’S ACQUISITION AND SALE OF CYBER TOOLS

Russian national Zelenyuk,through his St. Petersburg, Russia-headquartered company Operation Zero, has been active as an exploit broker since 2021.  Operation Zero has offered millions of dollars in bounties to cybersecurity researchers and others for the development or acquisition of exploits targeting commonly used software, including U.S.-built operating systems and encrypted messaging applications.  Operation Zero does not disclose the discovered exploits to the companies developing the affected software, and Operation Zero customers could use the tools to launch ransomware attacks or engage in other malign activities.  In advertisements and other public-facing materials, Zelenyuk and Operation Zero have stated that they will only sell the exploits they acquire to customers from non-NATO countries.  Zelenyuk, through Operation Zero, has sought to sell exploits to foreign intelligence agencies.  Zelenyuk and Operation Zero have also sought to develop other cyber intelligence systems, including spyware and methods to extract personal identifying information and other sensitive data uploaded by users of artificial intelligence applications like large language models.  Operation Zero has sought to recruit hackers to support its activities and develop business relationships with foreign intelligence agencies through use of social media.

OFAC is designating Zelenyuk and Operation Zero pursuant to E.O. 13694, as further amended, for being responsible for or complicit in, or having engaged in, directly or indirectly, cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or substantial part, outside the United States that are reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed to, a threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States, and that have the purpose of or involve causing a misappropriation of funds or economic resources, intellectual property, proprietary or business confidential information, personal identifiers, or financial information for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain.

. . .