IP2Innovate's submission on the upcoming European Innovation Act

IP2Innovate

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 A key obstacle to Europe’s digital competitiveness lies in the outdated framework governing the enforcement of patents.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/

IP2Innovate

Decades old framework harms competitiveness. Modernising EU’s patent system will be key to EU’s ability to innovate, compete and grow. ​​​Two decades is a long time to lag behind. But that’s how long the European Commission’s Competitiveness Compass tells us the EU has been trailing ​other major economies​. Why? ​​​​Part of the problem is that the system holding Europe back sits on decades old framework. The application of the IPR Enforcement Directive (IPRED), created before today's tech revolution, results in the heavy-handed enforcement over patents which damages innovation. The Compass recognises that to compete, Europe must be able to lead in critical technologies like AI, robotics, biotechnology, and clean energy – all sectors characterized by complex products incorporating thousands of patented technologies. Yet the current application of the IPRED does not cater for complex products. Currently, European patent courts nearly always grant automatic injunctions in patent infringement cases, even if the manufacturer of a complex product has accidentally infringed a patent reading on a minor component of that product. This means companies have to take entire product ranges off the market or pay excessively high settlements, with costs rising into the hundreds of millions. This is impacting investment decisions and​​​ diverting resources from key technology areas​​​​​, and what’s more, it​’​s enriching an ecosystem of ​​​investors​ that buy up ​trivial​ patents specifically to benefit from the imbalanced system. After 20 years, this outdated framework needs updating to ensure remedies for infringement are proportionate, and abusive patent litigation doesn’t hinder innovation and competitiveness. The United States ​​​made this adjustment almost twenty years ago​. The 2006 eBay v. MercExchange US Supreme Court decision required courts to evaluate the facts of each case before issuing injunctions. This balanced approach has​​​ put a stop to automatic injunctions​ while protecting legitimate patent rights. As Europe aims to close its productivity gap and lead in critical technologies, modernising IPRED is key. A more balanced patent system would support Europe's innovative capacity in the exciting and complex technologies that will drive future growth, and help bridge the competitiveness gap. The Compass states the EU needs to close the innovation gap and simplify rules to leverage the benefits of the Single Market. Otherwise, it will “will lose relevance” in a world characterised by strength of the “big powers”.

IP2Innovate

IP2I appreciates the improvements made to date to improve the availability of information on proceedings before the Unified Patent Court. To achieve its full potential for transparency and permit a better understanding of legal developments and trends, IP2I recommends that continued improvements focus on providing more robust searchability for information, and reducing the delay associated with making information available to the public.