OpenLobby.EU
Explore

IP Europe

IP Europe is a coalition of research-intensive organizations advocating for strong intellectual property rights and open standards.

Lobbying Activity

Response to Revision of the Standardisation Regulation

18 Jul 2025

IP Europe thanks the Commission for the opportunity to provide input to the call for evidence. IP Europe is a coalition of R&D-intensive organisations that champions the open innovation ecosystem, which enables the development of cutting-edge technology, drives private investment in R&D-intensive sectors and delivers innovation and growth for EU citizens and businesses. Introduction The geopolitical importance of international standardisation has been increasingly recognised over recent years. As noted in the European Commissions Competitiveness Compass, engaging systematically in global standard setting processes is very important to influence outcomes aligned with EU interests, helping industry to maintain competitive positions in key technology markets, such as 5G and 6G telecommunications, AI, renewable energy technologies, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, accessibility and the Internet of Things. The EUs International Digital Strategy aims to leverage standardisation to strengthen the competitiveness of its industry, foster digital and tech sovereignty, and protect and promote its fundamental values and interests while pursuing international cooperation in standard setting. A dynamic and open standardisation ecosystem is key to Europes strategic autonomy and technology leadership. It is also key for SMEs and startups as it provides a platform for innovation, offering fundamental technologies and wide interoperability, enabling the development of new products and services that can be offered to a global market. Please see the attached file for our full response to the call for evidence.
Read full response

Response to International Digital Strategy

21 May 2025

Please find the uploaded document on behalf of IP Europe members. Thank you!
Read full response

Meeting with Ann-Sofie Ronnlund (Cabinet of Commissioner Ekaterina Zaharieva)

13 May 2025 · Standard Essential Patents

Response to Revision of the EU competition rules on technology transfer agreements (Guidelines)

24 Apr 2025

IP Europe's Response to the European Commissions Call for Evidence for an Impact Assessment Revision of the Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation and Technology Transfer Guidelines. See attached document.
Read full response

Meeting with Mirzha De Manuel (Cabinet of Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis)

10 Apr 2025 · Intellectual property protection in Europe

Meeting with Adrián Vázquez Lázara (Member of the European Parliament)

7 Apr 2025 · Patent Package JURI Committee

Meeting with Angelika Niebler (Member of the European Parliament)

4 Apr 2025 · Legislative Simplification and Innovation Support, SEPs

Response to 2024 EU Justice Scoreboard

18 Jan 2024

Dear Madam / Sir, Please find attached the response of IP Europe VZW. Kind regards, Patrick McCutcheon
Read full response

Meeting with Deirdre Clune (Member of the European Parliament)

11 Oct 2023 · Standard essential patents

Meeting with Deirdre Clune (Member of the European Parliament)

11 Oct 2023 · Standard essential patent reform

Meeting with Raphaël Glucksmann (Member of the European Parliament)

29 Sept 2023 · APA Level - Standard Essential Patents

Meeting with Tiemo Wölken (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and European Association Automotive Suppliers and Continental AG

27 Sept 2023 · Standard Essential Patents Regulation

IP Europe Warns Patent Regulation Threatens EU Technology Sovereignty

10 Aug 2023
Topic — The European Commission is proposing a new regulatory framework for standard essential patents.
Message — IP Europe requests the Commission rethink the proposal to avoid undermining incentives for innovation. They argue the regulation would cause licensing delays and unfairly restrict access to courts.12
Why — Avoiding this regulation would preserve their ability to secure fair compensation for research.3
Impact — Manufacturers using standardized technology would lose the benefit of lower, regulated royalty payments.4
Read full response

Response to Compulsory licensing of patents

31 Jul 2023

IP Europe is a coalition of R&D-intensive organisations whose inventions are protected by Intellectual Property Rights. IP Europes goal is to promote the vital importance of IPR in general, and standard essential patents (SEPs) in particular, to the digital-and knowledge-based economy and to ensure that public policies support a strong open innovation ecosystem. IP Europes members collectively invest billions of euros each year in research and development critical for developing cutting-edge technologies. Its members also contribute to open, collaborative, and consensus-driven international standards development that makes these technologies widely available for integration into an ever-increasing array of connected products and services. IP Europe is grateful for the opportunity to provide feedback to the European Commission on the draft proposal to regulate compulsory licencing published on 26 April. Our view is that a well-functioning IP system supports innovation, as previously stated by the Commission as an overarching policy objective. Some of the Commissions proposals under its IP Action Plan that it regulate intellectual property rights, announced in April 2023, appear to undermine sustainable innovation. Public policy on Intellectual property rights, in particular patents, should maintain the incentives to perform upstream R&D to develop technology that might need, in exceptional cases, to be made available through compulsory licensing. Any regulation on licencing be it on standard essential patents or on compulsory licencing, must allow those who invest in R&D scope to appropriate remuneration, as the Commission itself states in its own technology transfer guidelines. Absent these incentives the R&D would not be undertaken and there would be no technology to license. Compulsory licencing is provided under TRIPs, as a last resort , to address the exceptional circumstances where supply of goods is threatened during public health emergencies or in public order or security situations. The purposes of compulsory licences should not be broadened. In this respect, the use of the word crisis as the context for the Commission deciding to put in place compulsory licensing appears inappropriate. These proposed changes to compulsory licensing in Europe suggest that compulsory licensing would no longer be restricted to the justified exceptional cases provided for under TRIPs. Compulsory licences are rarely needed or triggered. Compulsory licensing would not have made any difference during the recent Covid pandemic. Whereas there was indeed a delay in rolling out production and distribution of vaccines, this was not due to any refusal to licence but was rather a result of a lack of capacity and capability. While a degree of consistency in the issuance of compulsory licences by EU member states could be useful, the EC should not aim to expand on the exceptional cases provided for under TRIPs. It is preferred that Member States retain decision-making and due process regarding compulsory licencing, with the Commission assisting with a coordination role when requested.
Read full response

Meeting with Marion Walsmann (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Ericsson and Nokia

8 Jun 2023 · Standard Essential Patents

Meeting with Anthony Whelan (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen)

28 Mar 2023 · On Standard Essential Patents

IP Europe warns against regulations harming EU technological sovereignty

13 Mar 2023
Topic — This consultation explores how the EU can achieve sustainability and strategic autonomy by 2050.
Message — IP Europe urges the Commission to prioritize market-led solutions and base policy on actual evidence. They recommend publishing impact assessments before proposals to avoid disincentivizing technology investments.123
Why — Limiting regulatory interference in licensing ensures the organization's members maintain high returns on R&D.45
Impact — Downstream manufacturers could face higher licensing costs without government intervention in patent disputes.6
Read full response

Meeting with Maurits-Jan Prinz (Cabinet of Commissioner Thierry Breton)

2 Feb 2023 · standard essential patents

Response to Evaluation of the Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation and Guidelines

23 Dec 2022

IP Europe represents organisations which invest heavily in R&D and share their technology in open standards development providing access to all who wish to iuse these technologies in their products. We support an ecosystem of open innovation which enables an ever-increasing volume of licensing and a wide use of technologies and fosters further innovation both up- and downstream. As open technical standards constitute a major success in enabling markets to develop, a balanced regulatory framework is needed to facilitate this open innovation ecosystem. The TTBER and related guidelines provide a very useful framework that enable the participation of smaller firms and firms and other research organisations not active on downstream markets, generally work well and do not require major revision. The review should aim to retain incentives for pro-competitive innovation consistent with the strategic objectives of the EU. However, we note that, licensors have experienced an escalation in free riding by certain implementers. Standardised technology is often used without first taking a licence, and some users prefer to litigate rather than take a licence. This recalcitrance and hold-out undermines the ability of IP Europes members to continue to (re-)invest in R&D needed to further develop the standardised technology. This threatens the open standards ecosystem and undermines European leadership. Part of the increase in licensing is due to patent pools, offering one-stop shops for licensees. Pools are independent of both licensors and licensees and have been gaining traction as a licensing option in the auto sector and some IoT verticals. Pools are generally pro-competitive and efficiency enhancing as they only include complementary and not substitute technologies, and bilateral licensing remains an alternative. The existing safe harbour provisions address this in para 261 of the Guidelines. In contrast, the licensing negotiation groups (LNGs), that some stakeholders are suggesting, pose a threat to competition and could exacerbate the hold-out problem. THus, any LNG should be subject to careful scrutiny to ensure it does not create monopsony power or enhance the opportunity for IP infringement where they could constitute a drastic interruption to well-functioning markets. As far as we are aware, LNGs have not been approved anywhere, nor has there been an identified need for them. Allowing LNGs would fragment and destabilise the licensing of international standards and could make the EU unattractive for investment in innovation or business. To ensure that patent pools comply with antitrust guidelines, their formation does not preclude bilateral licensing, and implementers may license bilaterally. Equally, owners of technology should not be obliged to license through an LNG. Licensing takes different forms, reflecting the industrial structure and business models which vary according to business sectors and technologies. In the case of SEPs, technology is shared subject to FRAND terms to ensure both wide dissemination of the technology and a return on investment by the licensor who developed the technology. This is needed where the cost of developing the technology is significant and - but for adequate compensation - there would an under-investment in the technology development or a reluctance to share it in open standards development. If incentives to invest in R&D and in open standards were lost, the open ecosystem which produces the most rapid and competitive innovation would be lost and would be replaced with closed innovation comprising silos of technology with lock-in and a lack of interoperability. With less pressure to innovate to compete, a fall in innovation activity could follow and militate against the entry of new and ongoing participation of smaller players and introduction of their technologies to the market.
Read full response

IP Europe urges protection against bad faith patent hold-out

9 May 2022
Topic — The European Commission is consulting on a new framework for standard essential patents.
Message — IP Europe wants measures to tackle bad faith hold-out behavior in patent license negotiations. They argue any regulatory changes must be evidence-based to avoid harming European research and development.12
Why — Stronger patent enforcement helps research-intensive members secure royalties to fund future technological innovation.3
Impact — Large tech firms lose the ability to avoid paying for the technologies they use.4
Read full response

IP Europe warns against expanding EU compulsory patent licensing

29 Apr 2022
Topic — This consultation addresses fragmented procedures for compulsory patent licensing during EU-wide crises.
Message — IP Europe argues that current national systems work well and opposes EU intervention. They maintain that compulsory licensing must remain an extreme last resort for preventing abuse. The group suggests promoting voluntary industry initiatives instead of new mandates.123
Why — Strict IP protection preserves high returns for members' research and development investments.4
Impact — Governments might face higher costs or slower responses during future health emergencies.5
Read full response

Meeting with Stéphane Séjourné (Member of the European Parliament)

3 Sept 2021 · Plan d'action en faveur de la propriété intellectuelle (équipe)

Response to Revision of the EU competition rules on horizontal agreements

5 Jul 2021

IP Europe is grateful for the opportunity to comment on the IIA in the Commission’s ongoing review of the HBERs and the Horizontal Guidelines. We commend the Commission on its active engagement with stakeholders during the evaluation phase and its commitment to an evidence-based assessment. We appreciate the work the Commission has undertaken in preparing a detailed evaluation of the existing framework and its efforts to reflect feedback from stakeholders, including IP Europe. However, there are important omissions from the SWD, notably the need for the Horizontal Guidelines to acknowledge the real and present problem of hold-out (not only the theoretical risk of hold-up) and to recognise FRAND as a two-way street. According to the IIA, the HBERs and the Horizontal Guidelines are useful and remain relevant for stakeholders. IP Europe generally agrees with, and supports, this assessment. The IIA proposes – in the abstract – revision of the text of the Horizontal Guidelines to address concerns that they might not be sufficiently adapted to recent market developments or offer sufficient legal certainty for types of horizontal cooperation linked to these new developments; and are not coherent with developments in decisional practice and case law. While these proposals could, in principle, result in improvements on the existing framework and address points raised previously by IP Europe, this depends on the approach that the Commission intends to take on a number of key issues, which is unclear at this stage. This also has implications for the potential economic impact of the proposals and the potential impact on fundamental rights. In these circumstances, IP Europe reiterates our call for Chapter 7 of the Horizontal Guidelines to: • Address hold-out, and to take into consideration the potential impact of opportunistic refusals by implementers to agree on royalties vis-à-vis FRAND-abiding patent holders in order to depress prices, increase litigation, and reduce incentives to invest in standard-related innovations, consistent with the growing body of evidence and policy initiatives. • Acknowledge that the provisions are limited to standardisation agreements and, therefore, focused on SDO governance and IPR policies. • Delete the “to all third parties” language in paragraph 285, which has been willfully misinterpreted as imposing a ‘license to all’ rather than an ‘access to all’ requirement. This interpretation is entirely at odds with the rest of Chapter 7, which focuses on ensuring access for those wanting to use standardised technology covered by essential IPR, which is also enshrined in the access-based IPR policies of SDOs, such as ETSI, and reflected in case law from courts across Europe, including in Mannheim and Munich. In addition, to the extent that the Commission envisages addressing so-called licensee negotiation groups in its review of the Horizontal Guidelines, we share the concerns of the SEP Expert Group regarding the risks of buyers’ cartels and additional hold-out/collective-boycott opportunities for implementers, which is particularly worrying given the examples of companies, including in the IoT space, already colluding to avoid taking licenses. Also, while we recognise that competition policy can contribute to digitisation and the sustainability goals, this should not require or result in a fundamental change to the interpretation and the application of EU competition law. Equally, these laudable aims should not be used to disguise anti-competitive conduct, in particular hard-core restrictions of competition, particularly where they target innovative companies and undermine their ability and incentives to invest in R&D for future technologies. IP Europe and its members look forward to providing additional feedback to the Commission in the context of the forthcoming public consultation, as well as participating in the targeted stakeholder workshops and in bilateral meetings.
Read full response

Response to Intellectual Property Action Plan

14 Aug 2020

IP Europe commends the European Commission’s efforts to support EU innovators of all sizes, which includes creating the conditions for them to use Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) to drive investments in R&D. European innovation will be the engine to rebuild our economy post-COVID-19 and to enhance the strategic autonomy of the European Union. IP Europe welcomes the Commission’s focus on IP and its importance in “promoting a greener and digital economy” and its recognition that “well-calibrated and balanced IP policies can build up resilience and boost Europe’s industrial competitiveness.” We also note the Commission’s desire to “promote better licensing and sharing of IP-protected assets.” Voluntary sharing of intellectual property - through fair licensing practices and most notably through the use of standards essential patents (SEPs) - is an important part of promoting a greener economy and the Digital Single Market. It is only through processes that enable IPR sharing - including standardisation - that these goals can be met in ways that reflect EU values of openness while using our current industrial competitive advantages and achieving the critical scale required. Directly inspired by the successful open standards development model, please see the Annex attached: Principles and guidance for licensing Standard Essential Patents in 5G and the Internet of Things (IoT), including the Industrial Internet2 (CWA17431). We believe wide support for these positive principles will help provide the transparency and predictability sought by the Commission. As noted in the CWA17431, “more accessible and better information about standardisation, SEPs and licensing would enable wider participation, and quicker and easier transaction. This would aid those implementing 5G and IoT standards and, in turn, help promote the development of new products and services for consumers. […] it would be useful if a new entrant could readily find information about the licensing environment in one place. New entrants may then understand what aspects of 5G and the IoT they may need to license and from whom and plan their product development accordingly. […] a useful next step would be to explore the establishment of a gateway, to determine the information needed and work to provide such information.” By recognising these issues and providing the clarity needed, the IP Action Plan and the Commission itself can avoid a situation where the licensing and sharing of telecommunications technologies becomes increasingly less transparent, less efficient and more unpredictable. Appropriate policy and clarifications will instead enable Europe to continue fulfilling its digital potential and support the global competitiveness of the EU economy by capitalising on a precious and unique asset: the IP of Europe’s innovators. We provide more feedback in enclosed document, including on unlicenced use of the IP, treatment of SEPs and enforcement measures, in particlar to benefit SMEs.
Read full response

Meeting with Kerstin Jorna (Director-General Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs)

6 Jul 2020 · Discuss the current EU initiatives that may impact the SEPs licensing, including the upcoming IP Action Plan and the review of the EU Guidelines on Horizontal Co-operation Agreements

Meeting with Anthony Whelan (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen) and Nokia and

29 Jun 2020 · European global players in digital; 5G deployment conditions; foreign subsidies white paper; cloud adoption in Europe, switching possibilities, contestability of cloud markets - need for clear standards and security requirements; data governance.

Meeting with Anthony Whelan (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen) and Orange and

27 May 2020 · Licensing of standard essential patents

Meeting with Timo Pesonen (Acting Director-General Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs)

9 Dec 2019 · Exchange views on future Industrial Strategy and concerns on 5G

Response to Evaluation of EU competition rules on horizontal agreements

2 Oct 2019

IP EUROPE INPUT TO THE ROADMAP ON THE REVIEW OF EU COMPETITION RULES ON HORIZONTAL CO-OPERATION AGREEMENTS IP Europe thanks the European Commission for the opportunity to input into its thinking on the evaluation of EU competition rules on horizontal co-operation agreements between companies (“the Horizontal Co-operation Agreements Framework”) and fully supports the need for an evidence-led process. Consistent application of the Horizontal Co-operation Agreements Framework is an important prerequisite to ensure the sustainability of open standards development In order to contribute their technology to global standards like 5G, European standards developers look to the legal framework brought by the two relevant Block Exemptions and, in particular, the Guidelines on the applicability of Article 101 TFEU to horizontal co-operation agreements (“the Horizontal Guidelines”). This framework recognises the pro-competitive benefits of open standards and offers guidance on the conditions under which the collaborative process of developing standardized technology is presumed to fulfil the conditions set out in Art 101(3) TFEU. Moreover, the Horizontal Guidelines provide clarity on the need for standardisation participants to provide access to their patented standardized technology, as well as their ability to license it on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms once the standard is adopted in the market. This ensures that this ecosystem remains sustainable, as European companies (i) rely on this licensing income to sustain major and continued investments in Research & Development and, indeed, to continue participating in future standardisation efforts ; and (ii) at the same time, they require access to patented technology owned by others in order to manufacture standard-compliant equipment. Changes advocated by some large technology users could affect Europe’s ability to invest and compete in 5G Over the past years we have seen repeated attempts sponsored by major technology users to radically change how Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) are licensed. It is expected that these lobbying efforts will continue during this review process. IP Europe urges the Commission to ensure that the credibility of any changes to the text be based on empirical evidence or demonstrating real positive market effects or harm to the system. Otherwise there is a danger that changes are made on the basis of hypotheses, resulting in potentially serious unintended consequences. Particular attention should be given to the fact that innovators developing standards are, by design, significantly outnumbered by an increasing range of companies implementing standards such as 4G/5G in their products. We therefore urge the European Commission to thoroughly assess the effect of such proposals on the long-term sustainability of open standards. IP Europe looks forward to the opening of the public consultation and remains available to provide any input the European Commission deems helpful.
Read full response

Meeting with Maximilian Strotmann (Cabinet of Vice-President Andrus Ansip)

11 Dec 2018 · SEP licencing

Meeting with Thibaut Kleiner (Cabinet of Vice-President Günther Oettinger)

29 Nov 2018 · 5G and Internet of Things

Meeting with Filomena Chirico (Cabinet of Vice-President Jyrki Katainen), Florentine Hopmeier (Cabinet of Vice-President Jyrki Katainen)

27 Jun 2018 · IP protection under the current and next MFF

Meeting with Neven Mimica (Commissioner) and

16 May 2018 · Presentation of the Croatian entrepreneurs and innovators, including in the transport sector, to EU institutions.

Meeting with Maximilian Strotmann (Cabinet of Vice-President Andrus Ansip)

26 Sept 2017 · FRAND & ‘access for all’ principles

Meeting with Keith Sequeira (Cabinet of Commissioner Carlos Moedas), Manuel Nobre Goncalves (Cabinet of Commissioner Carlos Moedas)

27 Jun 2017 · Presentation of SME Manifesto

Meeting with Maximilian Strotmann (Cabinet of Vice-President Andrus Ansip)

21 Jun 2017 · Standardisation, SEPs

Meeting with Manuel Aleixo (Cabinet of Commissioner Carlos Moedas) and Unknown Organization

25 Jan 2017 · Innovation and Competition

Meeting with Thibaut Kleiner (Digital Economy)

8 Nov 2016 · Electronic Communication code

Meeting with Günther Oettinger (Commissioner) and Telefonica, S.A. and

22 Feb 2016 · Telco policies