IP2Innovate welcomes Draghi’s call to improve the pipeline from innovation to commercialization

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 A key obstacle to Europe’s digital competitiveness lies in the outdated framework governing the enforcement of patents.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

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.”

IP2Innovate

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.