blog
IP2Innovate

Innovation, gare aux chasseurs de brevets !

In an opinion piece published in the French media Lex Daily News, IP2I calls on France to modernise its law so that the principle of proportionality is effectively applied especially given the growing presence of complex products. The French law needs to be modernised so that it is compatible with the EU’s Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED) and to ensure proportionality is effectively applied within the Unified Patent Court.

Préserver la capacité d’innovation des entreprises nécessite de lutter contre les chasseurs de brevets.

Cette chronique partenaire est proposée par Patrick Oliver, executive director de l’alliance Intellectual Property 2 Innovate.

Principe fondamental, prévu par la législation européenne, le principe de proportionnalité implique que les décisions rendues par les tribunaux tiennent compte des faits spécifiques de chaque contentieux et ne conduisent pas automatiquement, comme c’est le cas aujourd’hui en Europe, à un retrait systématique des produits du marché.  

Si la loi française de lutte contre la contrefaçon a transposé, en 2007, la directive européenne relative au respect des droits de propriété intellectuelle dite « IPRED », la notion de proportionnalité prévue par cette dernière n’a pas été explicitement intégrée en droit français.

Or, cette omission du législateur permet aux chasseurs de brevets ou  « Patent Assertion Entities » (PAE) de proliférer.

Des coûts excessifs

Les PAE ne développent pas leurs propres produits ou services, mais font de l’acquisition de vastes collections de brevets leur activité principale.

En possession de brevets qu’ils n’exploitent pas, ces chasseurs réclament aux entreprises des règlements qui ne sont pas fondés sur la valeur réelle du brevet.

Ils brandissent ainsi la menace de poursuites en justice, dont l’issue est connue d’avance. Une injonction permanente sera prononcée automatiquement, du fait d’un défaut d’application de la proportionnalité.

Face au chantage et la menace d’un retrait pur et immédiat des produits du marché, les entreprises innovantes préfèrent céder aux PAEs avant que le sujet ne soit porté devant une cour, conduisant à des résolutions opaques. Ces prédateurs parviennent ainsi à arracher des règlements excessifs aux entreprises.

L’absence manifeste en France, dans la pratique, de prise en compte de la proportionnalité, en dépit de la directive IPRED, a donc des conséquences hautement préjudiciables pour les entreprises françaises, en les dissuadant notamment d‘investir dans la R&D et la commercialisation de nouveaux produits.

Pour préserver leur capacité d’innovation, il est temps que le droit français garantisse que les réparations pour violation de brevet soient effectivement proportionnées. Cette faille doit être comblée une fois pour toutes.

Une question de souveraineté

Une action en France pour assurer l’application effective de la proportionnalité contribuera aussi à promouvoir la même approche équilibrée de la part de la juridiction unifiée des brevets (JUB), qui applique à la fois le droit européen et le droit des États membres lorsqu’il s’agit de trancher un litige.

Et la capacité de la JUB à émettre des injonctions à l’échelle européenne peut donner aux chasseurs de brevets une arme encore plus puissante et amplifier les conséquences de leurs actions contre les entreprises innovantes.

La France a d’autant plus un rôle à jouer dans la mesure où elle accueille le siège de la division centrale du tribunal de première instance de la JUB qui traite des enjeux IT et des produits complexes, pour lesquels l’application de la proportionnalité est essentielle du fait de centaines de milliers de brevets impliqués.

L’application de la proportionnalité dans les procédures contentieuses en matière de brevet est indispensable si l’on veut pallier les détournements du droit par les PAEs, à l’heure où la souveraineté technologique et industrielle de la France et de l’UE est plus que jamais cruciale.

Il en va ainsi de la protection et la croissance des entreprises françaises et européennes, mais également de la crédibilité et du succès de cette nouvelle juridiction !

Si les entreprises françaises se modernisent, le droit français des brevets doit lui aussi se moderniser.

Share

Other blogs

IP2Innovate

More work needed to improve public access to UPC patent case documents

Last month a law firm submitted a request for documents under rule 262.1 (b) of the UPC Rules of Procedure, which ensures that written pleadings and evidence in patent litigation proceedings are available to the public “upon reasoned request.” The firm is calling on the central division of the Unified Patent Court in Munich to make available all written pleadings and evidence for a pending case in the court. The aim of the law firm, Mathys & Squire, is to establish a clear and consistent path for the public to access these documents in the future. IP2Innovate fully supports this initiative. We have been campaigning for more transparency in patent litigation for many years, and welcomed the improvement to the status quo that the UPC’s rules promised.
IP2Innovate

Structural weakness in Europe’s patent system should also be a Presidency priority

The Portuguese Presidency of the EU is hosting a high-level conference tomorrow focused on intellectual property in the digital world, and the importance of an innovation-oriented ecosystem to improve the quality of life for citizens and companies, and drive economic recovery.
IP2Innovate

IP2Innovate response to the Commission’s Call for Evidence on the Digital Fitness Check

IP2Innovate welcomes the Commission’s Digital Fitness Check and its commitment to delivering a simpler, more competitive Europe. As a coalition of small and large companies that create innovative products and services in Europe and that collectively hold thousands of European patents, IP2Innovate strongly supports efforts to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens for companies while maintaining high standards of protection for fundamental rights, consumer safety and European values. A key obstacle to Europe’s digital competitiveness lies in the outdated framework governing the enforcement of patents. The Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED), adopted in 2004, requires remedies for patent infringement to be proportionate but does not set out clear criteria for how proportionality should be assessed in relation to today’s complex digital and connected technologies – such as AI systems, IoT devices, semiconductors, smart vehicles or critical infrastructure. As a result, the lack of clear rules on how to ensure remedies are proportionate in relation to complex products has led to the de facto automatic granting of injunctions in patent cases, which result in the removal of entire product lines from the market even when the patent infringement relates to a minor feature of a complex product that incorporates thousands of patented components1. For complex products automatic injunctions create excessive litigation risk, legal uncertainty and significant disruption to supply chains, investment and innovation, and force Europe’s digital innovators to pay excessively high licensing fees for patents to settle patent lawsuits. This situation is to the detriment of Europe’s industrial base and competitiveness. Modernising IPRED to clarify how courts should assess proportionality and consider alternative remedies where appropriate would directly support the Commission’s simplification agenda. While this would require targeted amendments to the IPRED, the overall effect would be a reduction in regulatory burdens through: • Reduced litigation risk and administrative burden, particularly for SMEs and companies developing complex digital products; • Improved legal certainty and predictability, enabling companies to invest with confidence; • Lower financial and operational disruption, safeguarding innovation, jobs and supply chains. Amending the IPRED to provide further specificity on proportionality in patent litigation would not impact a patent holder’s ability to enforce its patent rights, but would make sure such enforcement is appropriately balanced in the digital age. Additionally, amending the IPRED would help reduce the number of avoidable court cases by making appropriate settlements between patent owners and innovative product companies more likely. As a result, courts would face a lower workload and could handle the remaining cases more efficiently, ultimately strengthening trust in the European patent system. A clearer, more balanced framework would align Europe with other regions of the world, enhance Europe’s global competitiveness, and prevent distortive practices that extract value without contributing to innovation. This issue is particularly well‑suited to be addressed at EU level, as digital products and services circulate seamlessly across the entire Single Market. Divergent interpretations of IPRED’s proportionality requirement create fragmentation, legal uncertainty and opportunities for forum‑shopping. Because patent enforcement rules directly affect the functioning of the Single Market, action by individual Member States cannot entirely resolve these inconsistencies. Only EU‑level reform can ensure uniformity and promote a proportionate and consistent application of remedies across jurisdictions. Modernising IPRED therefore directly supports the Commission’s objective of “a more cost-effective and innovation-friendly implementation of European rules – all the while maintaining high standards and core objectives of the rules”. This is exactly what IP2Innovate is calling for with the modernisation of the IPRED to clarify how courts should assess proportionality and consider alternative remedies where appropriate. Experience shows that non-binding clarification is not sufficient to address this structural problem. The Commission’s 2017 guidance on IPRED did not materially change judicial practice or reduce the near-automatic granting of injunctions in patent cases. More than two decades after its adoption, IPRED requires targeted modernisation to ensure that Europe’s patent enforcement system supports – rather than hinders – the Union’s objectives of competitiveness, simplification and technological leadership. About IP2Innovate IP2Innovate is a coalition of small and large research-intensive companies that develop innovative products and services in Europe, collectively holding thousands of European patents, as well as industry associations representing more than 40 companies. The coalition works with policymakers, the legal profession and judicial authorities to promote a balanced and innovation-friendly European patent system that supports investment, competitiveness and the successful commercialisation of new technologies in Europe. 1. This conclusion has been confirmed by the recently published Commission’s study on the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the EU - Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs Contact: contact@ip2innovate.eu https://ip2innovate.eu/
Back to overview

Subscribe to our newsletter

Privacy policy

© IP2Innovate 2025 - Website door Two Impress