Context:
- Earlier this year, the European Commission (EC) published a study evaluating the application of the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED), including issues relating to proportionality and patent assertion entities (PAEs) (February 1, 2026 ip fray article). We recently discussed this in depth with IP and competition law expert Dr. Peter Georg Picht (May 22, 2026 ip fray podcast episode).
- The study was published amid ongoing debate over patent injunctions and proportionality, with stakeholders divided over whether further legislative intervention is necessary.
- At a European Parliament (EP) Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) hearing on March 24, 2026 (official recording), EC Executive Vice President (EVP) and internal market commissioner Stéphane Séjourné showed no enthusiasm for the idea of amending IPRED at this point. He warned against unintended consequences that could “destabilize the mechanism” and recommended listening to judges first.
What’s New:
- On Wednesday (June 3, 2026), Marion Walsmann MEP (EPP-Germany) hosted a JURI workshop examining the future of IPRED and possible approaches to proportionality in patent enforcement.
- Several participants argued that proportionality remains insufficiently applied in patent litigation and discussed potential reforms, ranging from additional proportionality factors to a rebuttable presumption against injunctions in certain circumstances (March 30, 2024 ip fray article).
- Professor Matthias Leistner (Munich) and a representative of the EC’s Directorate-Generate for the Internal Market (DG GROW) advised caution, emphasizing the need to allow the UPC’s jurisprudence to develop further before considering amendments to the existing framework. Professor Rafal Sikorski (Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; profile on law firm page) and Professor J. Scott Marcus (European University Institute; profile), however, urged immediate intervention.
Direct Impact:
- Despite the panel not including any of the various academics who defend the status quo in patent enforcement, the workshop highlighted a growing divide between those seeking stronger proportionality safeguards in patent litigation and those arguing that the current framework should be given more time to develop. While some participants advocated specific legislative reforms relating to injunctions and patent remedies, others cautioned against reopening IPRED before the UPC has established a more substantial body of case law.
- The discussion also suggested that the European Commission does not currently view amendment of IPRED as a policy priority, despite continuing interest in the issue among some in the EP.
Wider Ramifications:
- The debate extends well beyond SEP disputes and could affect patent enforcement more broadly across technology, telecommunications, medical device and pharmaceutical sectors.
- Any future changes to IPRED’s proportionality framework could influence the availability of patent injunctions throughout the European Union, potentially affecting both rights holders and implementers.
The proportionality debate
While proportionality is a general principle across intellectual property law, discussions have centered particularly on patents because injunctions can have significant commercial consequences in technology-intensive sectors. The central policy question is not whether patents should be enforceable, but how patent remedies should be applied in practice.
Several workshop participants argued that proportionality remains insufficiently applied in patent litigation and advocated more specific safeguards. Proposals discussed during the workshop included requiring courts to consider additional proportionality factors when assessing injunctive relief, such as the characteristics of the infringed right, the relative conduct of the parties, third-party interests, and broader public-interest considerations. Professor Sikorski even advocated a rebuttable presumption against injunctions in certain circumstances, including disputes involving complex products covered by patents relating to minor components and enforcement actions brought by patent assertion entities (PAEs).
Opponents of reform respond that European courts already possess the tools necessary to address exceptional cases and point to the UPC’s developing jurisprudence (November 26, 2025 ip fray article) as evidence that remedies can already be tailored where appropriate.
“Pandora’s box”: Parliament push meets Commission caution
Several participants argued that proportionality remains insufficiently implemented in patent litigation and proposed legislative changes aimed at strengthening its role in the assessment of injunctions and other remedies.
Professor Leistner, however, argued that policymakers should allow the UPC’s jurisprudence to develop further before considering amendments to the existing framework. He also cautioned against conflating the success of European patent enforcement mechanisms with broader questions of European innovative capacity and suggested that the UPC’s evolving case law should be monitored closely.
A similar message emerged from the Commission. An EC representative described reopening IPRED as a potential “Pandora’s box” and indicated that the Commission continues to monitor developments at both the UPC and national courts. While the Commission has not ruled out future legislative or non-legislative measures, the discussion suggested that amending IPRED is not currently viewed as a policy priority.