blog
IP2Innovate

World IP Day 2024: Creating balance in the European patent system will help tackle the climate crisis and promote Europe’s competitiveness

This year’s World IP Day focuses on the role innovation and intellectual property play in enabling us to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and build a more sustainable future for all. Innovation offers the world a chance to address the climate crisis. It is crucial that the patent system functions properly so that green inventors get their ideas to market.

Europe faces a number of challenges right now, the green transition being high on the list. A balanced patent system is crucial for Europe’s success in this area as well as its global competitiveness. That is why IP2Innovate is calling for legislative action to further codify the proportionality requirement in EU law.

We believe that now is the time, 20 years after its adoption, to introduce targeted amendments to the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED) to ensure that courts in the EU Member States and the newly established Unified Patent Court consider the proportionality of remedies in their handling of patent litigation cases. This has always been a requirement in theory under the IPRED but has almost never been applied in practice. Automatic injunctions are the norm in EU countries (over 99% of cases), which means that an accidental infringement by a manufacturer of a patent that relates to a minor feature of a complex product can result in the entire product range being immediately removed from the market. This creates a huge disincentive for investment in the R&D necessary to bring the next generation of green products to market.

Guidance issued by the European Commission in 2017, aimed at correcting the misapplication of the EU law, has not materially improved the situation. An analysis of patent court rulings provided by Darts-ip, the leading source of global patent case data, for the period 2018-2020, shows that 99% of cases saw no proportionality assessment – compared with 99.7% of cases observed between 2015 and 2017.

As this data clearly shows that the Commission’s 2017 Guidance has not brought a material change in the application of proportionality, we are pleased that the Commission is currently conducting a new study to examine how to solve the problem of the lack of application, of proportionality.

The further codification of proportionality in the IPRED will help create a more balanced patent system. This will spur innovation, including in relation to products and services designed to meet Europe’s ambitious climate goals, and, in turn, help to promote European competitiveness in this critical area.

 

German patent law reforms

 

Legal reforms adopted in June 2021 in Germany, where most EU patent litigation takes place, appear to have encouraged more defendants to view proportionality as a potentially viable defense to an injunction. Since the reform there have been at least 17 court cases where proportionality was pleaded by the defendant during a 15-month period, compared to only two cases over the preceding six-year period. It is still too early to assess the real impact of the German reforms but early indications show that at least proportionality is being raised more frequently than before the reform.

Further codification at the EU level is necessary to address an imbalance in Europe’s patent system that harms competitiveness and innovation in Europe. It is possible that other Member States will follow Germany’s lead and we definitely would encourage this, especially given the fact that many Member States never explicitly transposed the IPRED’s proportionality requirement into their patent legislation. However, having clear EU rules to ensure a harmonized approach across the EU Single Market is essential to effectively enforce the application of the proportionality principles in patent litigations.

 

UPC context

 

Ensuring the equitable resolution of patent litigation in the EU through targeted amendments of the IPRED is of even more importance with the establishment of the Unified Patent Court (UPC). If automatic injunctions become the norm in the newly established UPC, innovative companies would face Europe-wide automatic injunctions and not just ones at national level.

With the arrival of the UPC, the stakes have increased, making it even more important to ensure that courts will consider the proportionality of the remedies sought by plaintiffs seeking injunctions on the grounds of a patent infringement. Proportionality will ensure that the interests of plaintiffs and defendants, as well as the public, are flexibly assessed to ensure a balance of the reasonable interests of all sides, which is especially critical in the case of complex consumer products. The threat of having a product taken off the entire European market would worsen the imbalance between patent owners and implementers.

We believe that further codification of proportionality in EU law would ensure that proportionality is effectively applied at UPC level, as well as in national patent courts.

Share

Other blogs

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.
IP2Innovate

IP2Innovate's submission on the upcoming European Innovation Act

IP2Innovate has responded to the Commission's call for evidence on the upcoming European Innovation Act, highlighting that proportionality in patent remedies across the EU is needed to support the European Innovation Act’s goals of creating innovation-friendly regulation and eliminating Single Market fragmentation. IP2Innovate welcomes the objectives of the upcoming European Innovation Act. A balanced patent system is an important prerequisite to ensure Europe’s global competitiveness in critical technology areas, its attractiveness for companies to invest and do business in, and to increase innovation and the take up of new technologies necessary to bridge the gap in productivity levels when compared to other major economies. Unfortunately, our member companies' experiences, supported by data, indicate that Europe's patent system currently lacks the necessary balance, undermining investment in innovation to the detriment of both the public and Europe’s competitiveness. The current practice by EU courts of granting automatic injunctions in patent infringement cases contradicts the European Innovation Act’s goals of creating innovation-friendly regulation and eliminating Single Market fragmentation. The solution is to modernize the 20-year-old IPR Enforcement Directive to align with Innovation Act objectives and to help close the innovation gap between Europe and its global competitors. Read our submission here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14593-European-Innovation-Act/F33069711_en
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