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A key obstacle to Europe’s digital competitiveness lies in the outdated framework governing the enforcement of patents.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

Read the full submission
Share

Other blogs

IP2Innovate

Seeking a new balance point in Europe’s patent system that better suits innovation and society

How to ensure the patent system in Europe best serves the innovation process has been a hotly debated topic for decades. In recent years lawmakers in Germany and in Brussels have started to realise that the old status quo – where patent courts hand out injunctions almost always automatically – doesn’t work in a world where advances in technology constantly bring more and more complex products to market, and where thousands of patents could possibly be relevant. It has become too easy for patent assertion entities (PAEs) to leverage the threat of automatic injunctions and disrupt the market presence of established consumer products in Europe to extract excessive license fees. While the interest of PAEs is limited to monetary compensation and not to stop the sale of products, the mere threat of such automatic injunctions is enough to push most targets of such assertions to accept disproportionate settlement conditions. It’s a hugely profitable business model for PAEs but it does little for innovation or for society, and undermines Europe’s competitiveness. By allowing this abuse, the European patent system is tilted too far in favour of patent holders and needs to be re-balanced. That is why in spring this year IP2Innovate called for the Commission to adjust the EU’s Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED), adopted in 2004. The law does require courts to apply proportionality when considering patent infringement cases, but this is not being applied in practice as injunctions continue to be granted effectively automatically even in cases where an alternative remedy would be more proportionate. An analysis of patent court rulings provided by Darts-ip, the leading source of global patent case data, for the period 2015-2020, shows that more than 99% of cases saw no proportionality assessment. Ensuring the equitable resolution of patent litigation in the EU through a targeted amendment of the IPRED is of even more importance with the establishment of the Unified Patent Court (UPC). Indeed, a recent study by Professor Sterzi of the Bordeaux School of Economics shows that PAEs initiated close to 30% of all infringement actions in the ICT sector – a key area for European competitiveness – in the UPC. If automatic injunctions become the norm in the newly established UPC, innovative companies would face UPC-wide automatic injunctions and not just ones at national level. The European Commission is evaluating this dynamic, and in 2023 commissioned a study to look at whether proportionality is being applied in Europe as well as looking into the role of PAEs in Europe. IP2I welcomes the European Commission’s initiative as Europe needs a properly functioning patent system fit for the modern age if it is to succeed in enhancing Europe’s competitiveness. The proportionality of remedies must be applied in patent litigation. Courts and parties need a clearer steer from Brussels to ensure it happens. Targeted revisions of the IPRED in relation to proportionality look set to be the next key challenge in patent policy in Europe. IP2Innovate hopes that the new attention being paid to the IPRED’s proportionality requirement will help to find a balance point in the European patent system that better suits the broader interests of innovation and society.
Patrick Oliver

SMEs – the unseen victims of patent trolling

As the European Commission turns its attention to helping improve the regulatory environment for SMEs here is a true story about how patent trolls broke the back of a successful small European business.
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.
 Back to overview

Subscribe to our newsletter

Privacy policy

© IP2Innovate 2025 - Website door Two Impress