Third Party Studies

IP2Innovate

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

BRUSSELS, 22 April 2025 - IP2Innovate: SEP regulation essential for European businesses' innovation and cost reduction Ahead of European Parliament’s JURI Committee hearing with Commission's Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné, IP2Innovate reiterates its strong opposition to the European Commission's intention to withdraw the SEP Regulation. "Withdrawing the SEP Regulation now would be a grave mistake that undermines innovation, European competitiveness, and the EU legislative process itself," said Patrick Oliver, Executive Director of IP2Innovate. "The current SEP licensing environment is broken - unpredictable, fragmented, and inefficient - chilling innovation across sectors and eroding the competitiveness of entire European industries, who often face abuse by mostly non-EU entities. This situation places Europe’s supply chain security at risk and further limits the availability of innovative products and features and increases costs for European consumers." "The Commission's claim of 'no foreseeable agreement' contradicts the facts. The European Parliament already adopted a position with overwhelming support, and the Polish Presidency has explicitly stated its readiness to resume work on the Regulation." "Europe has become a venue where often foreign SEP holders litigate to exclude European companies from the market. The proposed Regulation brings essential transparency and fairness to a broken system." "As we look to the future of standards, advancing - not abandoning - this Regulation is essential for Europe's technological competitiveness."

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

BRUSSELS, 12 February 2025 - IP2Innovate's statement on the Commission's intention to withdraw the SEP Regulation IP2Innovate expresses deep concern over the European Commission's intention to withdraw the Standards Essential Patents (SEP) Regulation. This last-minute decision would represent a significant setback for Europe's innovation ecosystem, including for a large number of European SMEs, and sends a troubling signal to innovative businesses that rely on predictable and fair SEP licensing frameworks. The Commission’s justification for withdrawing the proposal, citing the absence of a “foreseeable agreement,” is misleading. The European Parliament has adopted a negotiating position with an overwhelming majority. On the Council's side, several working group meetings have already been scheduled, including one for February 27, which would have allowed further discussion on this important issue. The current patent system in Europe urgently needs modernisation to bolster the region's competitiveness and innovation capacity. The lack of transparency and fairness in SEP licensing, combined with the absence of the application of proportionality to patent infringement cases, continues to impede innovation and ultimately diminishes the benefits of interoperability for European consumers. We strongly urge the Member States and European Parliament to reject this proposal for withdrawal and demonstrate their commitment to progressing this vital file. Looking ahead, we call upon the Commission to modernise the existing patent framework that applies to both SEPs and non-SEPs alike. This should include targeted amendments to the IPR Enforcement Directive, particularly concerning remedies for patent infringements. Such reforms are essential to strengthen Europe's competitive position in the global innovation landscape.

IP2Innovate

Decades old framework harms competitiveness. Modernising EU’s patent system will be key to EU’s ability to innovate, compete and grow. ​​​Two decades is a long time to lag behind. But that’s how long the European Commission’s Competitiveness Compass tells us the EU has been trailing ​other major economies​. Why? ​​​​Part of the problem is that the system holding Europe back sits on decades old framework. The application of the IPR Enforcement Directive (IPRED), created before today's tech revolution, results in the heavy-handed enforcement over patents which damages innovation. The Compass recognises that to compete, Europe must be able to lead in critical technologies like AI, robotics, biotechnology, and clean energy – all sectors characterized by complex products incorporating thousands of patented technologies. Yet the current application of the IPRED does not cater for complex products. Currently, European patent courts nearly always grant automatic injunctions in patent infringement cases, even if the manufacturer of a complex product has accidentally infringed a patent reading on a minor component of that product. This means companies have to take entire product ranges off the market or pay excessively high settlements, with costs rising into the hundreds of millions. This is impacting investment decisions and​​​ diverting resources from key technology areas​​​​​, and what’s more, it​’​s enriching an ecosystem of ​​​investors​ that buy up ​trivial​ patents specifically to benefit from the imbalanced system. After 20 years, this outdated framework needs updating to ensure remedies for infringement are proportionate, and abusive patent litigation doesn’t hinder innovation and competitiveness. The United States ​​​made this adjustment almost twenty years ago​. The 2006 eBay v. MercExchange US Supreme Court decision required courts to evaluate the facts of each case before issuing injunctions. This balanced approach has​​​ put a stop to automatic injunctions​ while protecting legitimate patent rights. As Europe aims to close its productivity gap and lead in critical technologies, modernising IPRED is key. A more balanced patent system would support Europe's innovative capacity in the exciting and complex technologies that will drive future growth, and help bridge the competitiveness gap. The Compass states the EU needs to close the innovation gap and simplify rules to leverage the benefits of the Single Market. Otherwise, it will “will lose relevance” in a world characterised by strength of the “big powers”.

IP2Innovate

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.

IP2Innovate

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.