header-logo header-logo

IPO considers next steps for SEPs

16 July 2025
Issue: 8125 / Categories: Legal News , Intellectual property , Patents , Technology
printer mail-detail
The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) is considering introducing a special licensing track and specialist pre-action protocols for standard essential patents (SEPs)

SEPs protect technology that is essential to implementing a technical standard. Examples include the technology that connects a car’s navigation tools to traffic systems, or that connects smartphones to headphones.

According to the IPO, there is a lack of transparency around SEP pricing, licensing, the use of patents in technical standards and ‘a growing and complex litigious environment’. Its consultation on SEPs, which runs from this week until 7 October, proposes the creation of a ‘rate determination track’, which would provide an independently adjudicated licence rate.

The government could also mandate the disclosure of patent information, to provide users and businesses with greater transparency.

The IPO notes that ‘the SEPs ecosystem is complex. It intersects with the patent framework, competition law, standardisation and contract law. It is also a global ecosystem, in that SEPs licenses can be granted to a licensee globally. This has resulted in several complex cross-jurisdictional disputes, including parallel litigation’.

Litigation can be expensive and take several years; for example, the IPO estimates the case of Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors v Lenovo Group Ltd & Ors [2023] EWHC 1578 (Pat) cost £31.5m.

The IPO expressed concern that court costs are likely to be ‘prohibitive to SMEs’. It also wants to hear from lawyers on how well pre-action protocols on disclosure and alternative dispute resolution are working to resolve licensing disputes. It suggests introducing specialist pre-action protocols for SEPs, to help with early resolution, and expanding existing mediation services for SEP disputes.

Welcoming the consultation, Sarah Vaughan, president of the Intellectual Property Federation, said: ‘As long-standing advocates for a balanced and effective IP framework, we support measures that enhance transparency, facilitate timely and fair licensing negotiations, and promote efficient dispute resolution.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll