Third Party Studies

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 A key obstacle to Europe’s digital competitiveness lies in the outdated framework governing the enforcement of patents.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

"We, the undersigned representatives of industry associations representing over 100 companies from various sectors (including automotive, information technology, semiconductors, software & services, AI, quantum technology, telecoms, communications and consumer goods), collectively holding more than 580.000 patents, and employing around 2,5 million people in the EU, urge the European Commission to take steps to modernise the 20-year-old Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED) in relation to proportionality of remedies for patent infringement, to ensure that the system is fit for purpose in the digital age and supports Europe’s competitiveness.

IP2Innovate

"IP2I welcomes the publication of the independent study into the effectiveness of certain provisions of the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED).

IP2Innovate

The Unified Patent Court’s first two years reveal a troubling pattern: the system is being deployed against the most innovative companies – particularly in high-tech sectors that drive technological progress and economic growth. Without modernising EU patent rules, the UPC risks becoming an innovation tax on these critical industries. Data source: Independent research initiative led by Valerio Sterzi (University of Bordeaux), tracking all UPC infringement cases since June 1, 2023, available at Key figures – UPCTrack

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.”