ICBW, but no, I don't think it does, except it perhaps a narrow set of circumstances.
Compulsory Licensing[1] is maybe what you're thinking of, but from what I can tell seems to apply mostly to drug patents, or things {the,a} government wants from you. It has a wider applicability in copyrighted forms of IP, I believe.
Patents that are part of some organised standard are often required to be placed under 'FRAND[2] (Fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory)' compulsory licences to allow for interoperability whilst still allowing the patent holder to receive (reasonable) royalties if they wish.
It would be more correct to say that "patents that their owners contribute to some organised standard ..."
If I add a patented process to an important standard, but I don't own the patents, you still don't get those patents just because they are part of some important standard.
Compulsory Licensing[1] is maybe what you're thinking of, but from what I can tell seems to apply mostly to drug patents, or things {the,a} government wants from you. It has a wider applicability in copyrighted forms of IP, I believe.
Patents that are part of some organised standard are often required to be placed under 'FRAND[2] (Fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory)' compulsory licences to allow for interoperability whilst still allowing the patent holder to receive (reasonable) royalties if they wish.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_licensing
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminat...