{"id":1994,"date":"2025-03-06T12:17:39","date_gmt":"2025-03-06T12:17:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/?p=1994"},"modified":"2025-03-06T12:17:39","modified_gmt":"2025-03-06T12:17:39","slug":"seps-are-life-but-finite-resources-geopolitical-circumstances-put-proposed-eu-sep-regulation-on-timeout-european-commissions-kamil-kiljanski","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/seps-are-life-but-finite-resources-geopolitical-circumstances-put-proposed-eu-sep-regulation-on-timeout-european-commissions-kamil-kiljanski\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018SEPs are life\u2019 but finite resources, geopolitical circumstances put proposed EU SEP Regulation on \u2018timeout\u2019: European Commission’s Kamil Kilja\u0144ski"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

Context:<\/strong> Last month, soon after it became known that the European Commission\u2019s (EC) proposal for a regulation on standard-essential patents (SEPs) was stuck in the EU Council (December 5, 2024 ip fray<\/strong> article<\/a>), the proposal was dropped (February 11, 2025 ip fray<\/strong> article<\/a>). This, according to EC Executive Vice President for Tech Sovereignty Henna Virkkunen, was because Europe \u201cneeds less bureaucracy and more space for innovation and entrepreneurship\u201d and the EC wants to \u201ccut the red tape and work smarter.\u201d The market has been divided over that decision, although a Council Working Group meeting involving all Member States voted in favor of the withdrawal last week (February 28, 2025 ip fray<\/strong> article<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\u2019s new:<\/strong> During the \u201cRegulatory and Enforcement Developments for SEPs\u201d conference<\/a> hosted by the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland and the Polish Presidency of the Council of the EU today, Directorate General for Single Market and Industry (DG GROW) IP deputy director Kamil Kilja\u0144ski emphasized that the EU\u2019s SEP regulation proposal is only on a \u201ctimeout\u201d and that eventually the Commission may be in a position to \u201crenew the wedding vows\u201d later down the line. Mr. Kilja\u0144ski noted that one of several factors contributing to the proposal getting \u201cstuck\u201d in the first place was the shift in geopolitical circumstances: \u201cThe likelihood of following the Commission\u2019s solution across the pond decreased [and while] in this constituency we think SEPs are the meaning of life, the college has to look at things that are happening both east and west\u201d \u2013 noting that Ukraine has become another major priority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Direct impact and wider ramifications: <\/strong>Mr. Kilja\u0144ski\u2019s statements clarified that the withdrawal has not completely been dropped \u2013 co-legislators (Parliament, Member States) have six months to extend an opinion. While the EC will give the final say, and the DG GROW deputy director was keen to remind audience members today that February\u2019s decision is not final, his remarks stood in stark contrast to a rather critical European Patent Office Director of Patent Developments & IP Lab Michael Fr\u00f6hlich<\/a>. \u201cThe Commission\u2019s intention to shelve the regulation is to be welcomed,\u201d Mr. Fr\u00f6hlich said. While it is too soon to say what the next six months will bring, some major stakeholders are clearly more keen for this \u201ctimeout\u201d to become permanent.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Speaking on a panel this morning, Mr. Kilja\u0144ski reminded audience members that the EC\u2019s decision last month was \u201cnot a withdrawal but an intention to withdraw.\u201d The decision is now in the hands of Member States and Parliament and, while at the end of the process, the EC will have the final say, it is politically important what the EU Council does too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He noted that the EC\u2019s decision is very much a \u201cpolitical decision\u201d in response to the intention of the co-legislators. \u201cThat ties a little with the justification for withdrawal, which is that the progress was insufficient,\u201d he said. Mr. Kilja\u0144ski explained that the slow progress of the proposal was due to several factors, including that the package had six different regulations (one of which is now adopted and the other is much more advanced), and that there was a \u201clull\u201d between the Spanish and Polish presidencies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

One major factor, too, he noted was that geopolitics have changed as well:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe likelihood of following the EC\u2019s solution across the pond, both being equal, decreased.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Also, according to Mr. Kilja\u0144ski, the EC had a massive exercise of efficiency because of what happened in Ukraine:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThis is not substantively related to the proposal but we have finite resources. In this constituency, we think SEPs are the meaning of life, but the college has to look at things that are happening both east and west. That\u2019s also an element of thinking to do with the resources \u2013 because when the proposal is stuck, there is no point in agonizing over it when there is no solution.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Speaking on that same panel, the EPO’s Michael Fr\u00f6hlich praised the EC\u2019s decision:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cIt appears to be fully in line with the EU\u2019s competitive compass, which made clear that robust patent protection is essential for progress and also emphasized the need to create a regulatory environment that is simple and less complex.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

While noting that there is much to be done to increase transparency and predictability \u2013 with the aim of making SEP licensing easier for everyone \u2013 Mr. Fr\u00f6hlich said the EPO doesn\u2019t believe the draft would have achieved these objectives. \u201cThey were in need of balance and many were not necessary,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In fact, the EPO director said this shelving will provide an opportunity to re-enforce the EU\u2019s commitment to find and streamline patent protection and litigation as a \u201ckey driver of European competitiveness\u201d and any future consideration \u201cshould and will necessarily have to include the [Unified Patent Court].” Commending the UPC\u2019s success so far, he reminded the audience that this system was in response to demand by users who \u201cknew this specialization was key to providing Europe-wide coherency.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Later in the panel session, Yoshinobu Sato, Director of IP and the Japan Patent Office\u2019s representative in Europe, gave a thorough presentation on the JPO\u2019s new guide to SEP licensing. That panel, entitled \u201cPolicy and legislative developments related to SEPs in Europe, UK, US and Japan\u201d, was moderated by University of Utah professor Jorge Contreras<\/a>, and the remaining panelists included Christian Hannon<\/a>, a senior patent attorney at the USPTO, Jamie Lewis<\/a>, Head of Standard Essential Patents, IP and Competition Policy at the UK IPO and Andr\u00e1s J\u00f3k\u00fati<\/a>, Director of the Patent and Technology Law Division at WIPO. The conference, in the Polish capital of Warsaw, concludes tomorrow, March 7, 2025.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Speaking at a SEP conference in Warsaw today, DG GROW IP deputy director Kamil Kilja\u0144ski emphasized that the European Commission\u2019s decision to withdraw its proposed SEP regulation was only on a \u201ctimeout\u201d and that a large factor that contributed to this was a shift in geopolitical circumstances \u2013 in particular those in the U.S. and Ukraine.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[38,118,37,11,15,107,47],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1994","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-eu-sep-regulation","category-european-patent-office","category-ip-legislation","category-patent-policy","category-standard-essential-patents","category-uk-intellectual-property-office","category-united-states-patent-trademark-office-uspto"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1994","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1994"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1994\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2009,"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1994\/revisions\/2009"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1994"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1994"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1994"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}