Blogs
blog
September 28, 2023
IP2Innovate

IP2I calls on European Commission to protect Europe’s patent system from abuse

A new academic study by economists at the universities of Bordeaux, Grenoble, and Universitat Pompeu Fabra (Barcelona) highlights how patent assertion entities (PAEs) are continuing to take advantage of weaknesses in Europe’s patent system.

 

The study, entitled Patent Privateering, looks at one specific method of patent abuse. Patent privateering is a term to describe a situation where a patent owner hands patents to a patent assertion entity (PAE) to exploit for mutual benefit, allowing the patent owner to maintain a secret stake in the patents. The study concluded that patent privateering is widespread in Europe.

 

The practise has been around for many years but as other jurisdictions including the US have made it harder, Europe’s patent system is a ripe target for abuse. This is largely because patent courts in Europe do not apply the principle of proportionality, and instead hand out injunctions to patent owners almost automatically.

 

The study found that the large majority of patents transferred to PAEs (92%) and litigated by PAEs (96%) are in the ICT fields, where products are complex and can be covered by thousands of patents held by many different companies.

 

When one ICT company sues another, it faces the threat of a countersuit, and injunctions are possible on both sides. As a result, a typical outcome is for the companies to license each other, allowing both to move forward providing innovative products to the public.

 

The dynamic is very different when a PAE is involved.  A PAE does not need to obtain any licenses from other firms and is not at risk of being counter-sued by its targets because it does not produce any goods or services.

 

And because the European patent system almost automatically grants PAEs injunctions even though they have no products of their own, they are able to demand higher royalties based on that injunction threat than would have been the case between two operating companies.

 

That result is bad for innovation. As the study explains, it is also bad for competition when the arrangements transferring patents to PAEs incentivize them to attack the competitors of the original owner of the patent.

 

This new study sheds additional light on how the failure to apply proportionality in Europe’s patent system creates further distortions that harm innovation, and ultimately consumers.

 

IP2Innovate urges the European Commission to take action to fix this. Existing EU legislation – the IP Rights Enforcement directive (IPRED) – calls for proportionality but it has been largely ignored in patent litigation.

Share

Other blogs

Blogs
December 19, 2023
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.
Blogs
February 22, 2022
IP2Innovate

Prof. Rafal Sikorski: Towards a More Orderly Application of Proportionality to Patent Injunctions in the European Union

In the paper by Professor Sikorski, titled: Towards a more orderly application of proportionality to patent injunctions in the EU, he proposes changes needed to safeguard Europe’s patent system from abuse by opportunistic PAEs.
Blogs
March 19, 2025
IP2Innovate

New academic paper calls for targeted reforms of the IP rights enforcement directive to boost European competitiveness

A new academic paper titled Realizing the potential of proportionality in patent enforcement A case for amending IPRED by professor Rafal Sikorski from Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, Poland makes a convincing case for making targeted amendments to the IP rights enforcement directive (IPRED). IP2Innovate spoke to him and asked why IPRED reform is so important for European competitiveness? Here’s what he said: “We are aware that patent enforcement, especially injunctive relief, can be leveraged by patent holders to obtain excessive royalties. Users innovate with their products but find there may be a patent in a small part of the product, one that may even have come from a component supplied by a third party. This is frequently the case with complex tech products. Clearing up these patent issues is both time consuming and costly and in some cases – that is when patent applications have just been filed by patent holders but not yet published – simply impossible”. Professor Sikorski said. “This impacts competitiveness because it can result in products being removed from the market. The injunction creates a barrier to entry and that stifles competition It deprives the market of competition, and it denies consumers the ability to buy these products. “Products have been barred from sale in Europe due to patent disputes. It has happened in the mobile phone sector, laptops, cars. Even a temporary injunction has a very negative effect on a firm’s business. “Mario Draghi’s report on how to restore European competitiveness has been interpreted by some patent owners as a call for strengthening patent enforcement. However, I would argue that Europe must have a more flexible system. Ensuring healthy innovation and competitiveness requires more than just rigid enforcement. It also needs flexibility to address concerns in individual cases.”
Back to overview

Subscribe to our newsletter

Privacy policy

© IP2Innovate 2025 - Website door Two Impress