blog
worldipreview.com
NPEs: hiding ownership and gaming the system

The lack of transparency around NPEs marks a serious problem for the European patent system, argues Patrick Oliver of IP2Innovate.
Share
Other blogs
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.”
Patrick Oliver
Patent abuse hurts European SMEs and undermines the knowledge transfer process
This year World Intellectual Property Day focuses on SMEs. As the two examples below show, patents can be an SME’s worst enemy, as well as their best friend. Abuse by patent assertion entities is a serious and growing threat in Europe, especially to small and mid-size innovative firms. The gaming of the European patent system must stop.
IP2Innovate
IP2Innovate submits feedback to the European Commission Consultation on the Single Market Strategy 2025
On 28 January, IP2Innovate submitted its key recommendations for the upcoming EU Single Market Strategy 2025, highlighting the need to modernize patent enforcement in Europe.
In the submission, IP2Innovate stresses that consistent application of proportionality requirement to patent enforcement is essential for the functioning of the Single Market. Modernization of the EU IPR Enforcement Directive through targeted amendments is needed to fully exploit the potential of the Single Market to boost Europe’s productivity.
IP2Innovate believes that, after 20 years, now is the time to modernize the IPRED through targeted amendments to ensure that courts in the EU Member States and the newly established Unified Patent Court consistently and effectively consider the proportionality of remedies in their handling of patent litigation cases. Such targeted amendments would ensure the consistent and effective application of proportionality across all EU Member States, creating a more predictable legal environment that supports the free movement of goods and services within the Single Market. By fostering legal certainty and reducing market inefficiencies, these changes will unlock the full potential of the Single Market to drive Europe’s productivity and competitiveness.