OpenLobby.EU
Explore

4iP Council EU AISBL

4iP Council

4iP Council is a European research council dedicated to developing high quality academic insight and empirical evidence on topics related to intellectual property and innovation.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Marion Walsmann (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Cisco Systems Inc.

22 Sept 2023 · Standard Essential Patents

Meeting with Danuta Maria Hübner (Member of the European Parliament)

28 Aug 2023 · Standard Essential Patents (COD 2023/0133) (Meeting with APA)

Response to Standard Essential Patents

10 Aug 2023

4iP Council is a not-for-profit research council comprised of a broad variety of supporters and ecosystem partners with research and development activities in Europe. Since our inception in 2013, we have been dedicated to developing high quality academic insights and robust empirical evidence on intellectual property (IP) and innovation. Within the field of IP rights, patent rights (including standard essential patents SEPs) have been the focus of our research. 4iP Council is also fully committed to supporting small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). We strongly believe that by understanding the various forms of IP rights and their benefits, SMEs can use them to grow their businesses more effectively. 4iP Council appreciates the opportunity to share several academic research papers from different academics assessing the European Commissions proposed SEP regulation. The attachment provides more details and information about sound academic research papers. 4iP Council remains ready to further assist the European Commission in enhancing the current European IP system in order to achieve the objectives set out in the Standardisation Strategy, i.e., to strengthen the EU's global competitiveness, to enable a resilient, green and digital economy.
Read full response

Response to Standard Essential Patents

3 May 2022

4iP Council, the leading European not-for-profit research council on intellectual property, appreciates the opportunity to provide empirical academic research papers on whether the standard essential patents licensing ecosystem is functioning efficiently and effectively and striking the right balance for all entities involved. We submit our comments based upon our extensive experience and expertise in delivering sound academic research on intellectual property and innovation generally, and on SEPs specifically. In fact, a large part of the independent research we openly share is dedicated to SEPs. Within 4iP Council’s activities we offer a variety of summaries of European case-law related to SEPs, webinars on SEP related topics where we invite experts in the field to share their views, and transparent academic research that seeks evidence in the field of IP and standardisation. Against this background, 4iP Council respectfully shares with the European Commission the key findings of the SEP related research freely available on the 4iP Council’s website, providing evidence and corresponding to the objectives and policy options identified in the Initiative. The attached document provides summaries of empirical academic research papers, reality highlights, academic key findings and recommendations. Should you have any questions, need additional information or wishes to discuss, 4iP Council is at your service.
Read full response

Response to Intellectual Property Action Plan

13 Aug 2020

4iP Council has developed many tools and resources dedicated to start-ups and SMEs covering copyrights, trademarks, design rights and patents. This is part of the 4SMEs initiative, through a dedicated page that helps SMEs to better understand what are the different types of IPRs, their benefits, and how they can be fully used by SMEs to grow their business. IP is the pillar of the EU economy and our research has shown that to continue to sustain European inventiveness and innovation across all sectors, particularly in the technology-focused sectors, a strong cohesive IP framework is vital for European Industrial policy. 4iP Council has a deep understanding of the value of a strong IPR system and what it implies for future economic growth, and based on our research we have compiled recommendations for the use of IP Policy in ‘Revitalising European Inventiveness’. We have conducted empirical research and curated materials which can lend support to the Commission’s creation of the IP roadmap. Patents are effectively the “currency” of the Digital Economy technology base. The success of the system depends on patent quality that needs to be maintained and, where possible, further improved. The patent system has shown huge flexibility (exclusivity, licensing, access to capital, knowledge transfer, reasonable access to technology etc). Patents are assets and thus provide an investment basis by creating the opportunity to provide a return for successful technological solutions. However, patents cannot prevent free-riding once an idea is published and available to the public, unless, of course, patent rights are respected. SMEs and start-ups need patent protection for their technology to compete against and/or have bargaining power versus large competitors and/or licensees. The possibility for a patent holder to enforce its patents in a timely and efficient manner is critical for the right to have value. Obtaining a patent is the first step for inventors/companies to create a viable commercial product. Further capital investment and the development of effective IPR strategies are necessary for an inventor/company to monetise and reap the full benefits of their invention. Companies that are actively engaged in the creation of IP and usage of IPR, are proven to become more successful and so contribute more to the European GDP. To properly support the investors/companies taking on this risky initiative, Europe must both create an environment which can effectively deter free-riding or unfair competition and ensure timely and efficient protection of intangible property. This will limit the risks which cause European start-ups to fail, while also improving uptake and investments in IPR by SMEs. This will help European companies to fully compete on a global scale. This growth will only occur in the EU if technology creation is valued and protected by the regulatory framework and ultimately the courts. The ability of patent holders to seek judicial redress and have effective access to courts and remedies is core to have meaningful intangible property protection. The Enforcement Directive makes this clear: intellectual property requires a high level of protection throughout the EU. It is strongly recommended that the Commission ensures strong respect and protection of IPR. A climate of respect for invention and intellectual property would also enable the Commission to ensure that intangible assets are a greater asset for European inventors. In relation to a balanced approach regarding injunctions, and highlighting that one of the aims of the Roadmap is to counter IP theft, it is important to emphasise that courts in European members states have, on the whole, a balanced approach towards injunctions. Further limitations to the right to seek, obtain and enforce an injunction may weaken IPRs, thereby reduce their attractiveness and forego the potential benefits they offer for a healthy investment and innovation climate. More in the attachment.
Read full response

Response to Evaluation of EU competition rules on horizontal agreements

3 Oct 2019

4iP Council is an organisation made up of 24 supporters and ecosystem partners, whose aim is to develop high quality academic insight and generate empirical evidence on topics related to intellectual property (IP) and innovation. Patent rights are where the main competence of 4iP Council research has focused, including on research & development and standardisation. We wholeheartedly support that the current consultation should seek to deliver a high-quality evaluation of whether the existing guidance regime requires updating or not. In the context of the Evaluation, 4iP Council wishes to make the following points specifically relating to the Chapter on standardisation in the Horizontal Co-operation Guidelines (HCG). We have referenced our research as relevant (attached). 1.Innovation is a geo-political issue; indeed, those sectors or technologies identified by President-elect Von Der Leyen i.e. blockchain, high performance computing, algorithms, and data-sharing and data usage tools, as well as defining standards for 5G networks and new generation technologies are heavily reliant on complex technologies, risky upfront investment in R&D and indeed standardisation, if they are to achieve economies of scale and network effects. These technologies, and the investments that enable them, are usually protected by the IP system. In addition, these sectors are deemed critical to ensuring technology sovereignty and autonomy which would imply that, in exercising its prioritisation discretion, DG COMP should bear these overriding issues into account. Unless there is clear evidence of abuse, based on sound evidence and theory, DG COMP should prioritise policy coherence. For this reason, engaging with colleagues in the Commission would be critical during this review. 2.The Commission should ensure that its evaluation creates a framework to assist European standardisation to develop the best solutions. Competition policy should support this objective, notably by not undermining the positive aspects of European standardisation, led by European SDOs. The HCG should support this. In reviewing the HCG, it is important that the resulting guidance does not cause revolution in standardisation policies. 3.This phase of evaluation is important to ensure that the HCG are principally based on a solid legal, empirical foundations necessary to provide guidance and legal certainty. 4.The underlying principles of HCG, to create a safe harbour for Standards Organizations (SOs) and their participants, in order to avoid or prevent possible exclusionary effect from occurring. If SOs and participants are to undertake self-assessment with any certainty, the HCG cannot contain controversial elements that undermines the self-assessments. 5.There needs to be an appropriate weighting for the consultation. It will logically be the case that technology contributors will tend to be far outnumbered by standard implementers. As a result, one would expect many more responses to the consultation from the users of standards than those that take part in standards development and even less from those who develop the technologies contributed to standards 6.An increase in understanding is positive, as the rules and policies governing standardisation, as well as the development of standards, have increased in complexity. 7.The current HCG recognize the tension between different business models. However, it may not be the case that companies seeking to contribute and/or to select a technology solution or standards are strict competitors, but rather that different non-rivalrous levels of the value chain are involved. 8.Revision of the HCG to expand into the area of Art 102, notably relating to licensing conditions, is unclear especially where controversial theories are involved. 9.The Commission is right to review the effectiveness of the current system. One way of doing so is to see whether the adoption of the current HCG resulted in significant reforms in SO practices.
Read full response