Context: Since 2021, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has been conducting extensive research to establish if the current system of licensing standard-essential patents (SEPs) is functioning effectively. A year ago, it launched the world’s first SEPs Resource Hub to help UK businesses navigate the SEP ecosystem more confidently (June 7, 2024 ip fray article). The UK’s telecommunications sector alone adds over ÂŁ40 billion to the country’s GDP, with SEP-dependent technologies playing an essential role in that.
What’s new: The UKIPO has today launched a consultation seeking views (by October 7, 2025) on several proposed measures to address challenges in the SEP ecosystem, such as transparency, dispute resolution, and licensing efficiency (July 15, 2025 UKIPO press release). Most notably, the consultation highlights that “licensing offers made by SEP holders have exceeded court adjudicated rates by 4-500 times” and that SMEs cannot afford to challenge “suspected supra-FRAND rates through litigation”. The UKIPO is also inviting stakeholders to comment on ways to address knowledge and information gaps between parties in SEPs negotiations, to “avoid complex and costly litigation”.
The proposed measures would include:
- A specialist rate determination track: to provide licence rates for SEP portfolios on a case-by-case basis. This could increase consistency and transparency in SEP pricing. It could give businesses of all sizes a more efficient and cost-effective route to obtain a SEP licence rate.
- Mandatory provision of searchable information: requiring patent holders to disclose standard-related patent information to the IPO. This would help address the current lack of transparency around SEPs and licensing obligations.
Direct impact and wider ramifications: The UKIPO emphasizes in its announcement that the measures aim to support both patentees and implementers, but it then goes on to say its main objectives are to “help implementers, especially SMEs, navigate and better understand the SEPs ecosystem and FRAND licensing”.
This is the consultation:
The consultation claims that there are “inefficiencies” in the UK’s SEP ecosystem that may create barriers to innovation, including knowledge and information gaps between SEP holders and implementers, a lack of transparency in the SEPs licensing process, and a costly and often complex dispute resolution environment. It notes that one recently reported case cost a company £31.5 million.
The UKIPO states:
“A lack of pricing transparency means that licensees can overpay for licences, and we have seen evidence emerging through litigation that licensing offers made by SEP holders have exceeded court adjudicated rates by 4-500 times. Further, not all licensees, and especially SMEs, can currently afford to challenge suspected supra-FRAND rates through litigation.”
It also notes that “because SEP holders have all the information on their patent”, there is an information “asymmetry” between them and the SEP licensees. This makes it difficult for implementers to know which patents are truly essential to a standard, and therefore whether a licence is needed and what the licensing obligations are, the IP office adds.
One of the more notable measures the UKIPO proposes is the specialist rate determination track. This would provide licence rates for SEP portfolios on a case-by-case basis through a judicial process, and would allow an implementer to ask for a global rate.
The consultation also seeks evidence on:
- The use of pre-action protocols: to establish if they work well in SEPs negotiations, by encouraging early disclosure of relevant information. This will help establish if a specialist SEP pre-action protocol may be needed in cases where negotiations are less likely to reach an agreement and may move towards litigation.
- Essentiality checking solutions: to establish whether they are accessible for all parties, and if there is a case for the government to introduce an essentiality determination opinion service.
- SEP remedies: whether the patent framework provides adequate remedies for SEP disputes.
- Alternative Dispute Resolution measures: the extent to which they are used and accessible for all businesses, especially smaller businesses.
The UKIPO’s announcement also contains quotes from Feryal Clark MP, the UK’s Minister for Intellectual Property, who said that IP is “central” to the government’s growth mission and underpins the technologies that power our connected future, from 5G and electric vehicles to smart manufacturing and healthcare.
“This consultation will help make the licensing of these technologies more straightforward and accessible,” he added.
President of the IP Federation Sarah Vaughan also commented, noting that her federation welcomes the government’s approach and supports measures that “enhance transparency, facilitate timely and fair licensing negotiations, and promote efficient dispute resolution”.
Also in a statement today, President of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys Bobby Mukherjee said:
“The UK patent profession is one of the most skilled and experienced in the world in the SEP arena, and we welcome the IPO’s energy and vision in initiating activity in a vital support area for our market-leading offering.”
Opinion
For some time it looked like the UK IPO was going to be less intervenionist in the SEP context than the European Commission, but that appears to have changed. While the EC realized after a two-year legislative process that SEPs are a difficult topic to legislate on, the new UK government surprisingly wants to go in that direction.
Florian Mueller
The UK IPO does deserve credit for at least outlining its (largely misguided) ideas and requesting feedback instead of just asking general questions (like the EC) and then surprising everyone with sweeping proposals.
The consultation raises more questions than it answers.
The same UK government that realized overregulation in the competition context runs counter to the country’s economic interests now wants to enact SEP-specific legislation. It suggests that this UK government doesn’t care too much about its country’s real problems, given that the UK has no major standard-setting organization, no major SEP holders, no major implementers.