Summary

  • The UK rejected a standalone IPEC rate track, but will explore an early-neutral-evaluation route inside existing court proceedings and assess a separate voluntary IPO opinion service.
  • Neither early view would itself be a binding global FRAND ruling; the IPO service has not been approved for launch, and the Government response cites an outdated CPR paragraph number for the existing court power.

The UK Government has chosen to move the first assessment of a standard-essential-patent (SEP) licensing dispute earlier without creating a new place to decide the final rate. Its 13 October response rejects a standalone Rate Determination Track in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC), yet opens work on a court-anchored early evaluation and a possible opinion service at the Intellectual Property Office (IPO). The split is deliberate: make negotiation less blind while keeping binding adjudication with courts.

The distinction matters because an SEP is a patent covering technology needed to implement a technical standard, and FRAND commitments are intended to shape licensing terms. Disputes can turn on more than a number: the evidence, methodology, confidentiality and relationship between a rate and other issues in the case can all matter. A fast forum that isolates the rate may therefore produce neither a faster settlement nor a result parties trust.

The consultation ran from 15 July to 7 October 2025, asked 47 questions and received 93 responses. The Government says respondents broadly supported quicker and more affordable FRAND resolution, but no consensus emerged for the proposed IPEC track. The response also cautions that submissions reflected a range of views rather than one representative position. The count is a record of participation, not a vote authorising one model.

The Government points to practical obstacles: rate-setting may be difficult to separate from wider disputes; FRAND assessments can involve complex evidence and competing methods; and a new track might not deliver the expected time savings. It also heard that speed and lower cost could come at the expense of quality and confidence. Smaller firms wanted affordability and simpler procedures, while some said a court process could remain beyond their means. Rejecting the track therefore leaves the access problem open; it does not show that the problem has disappeared.

The court route would begin after a claim is issued. The Government will discuss with the judiciary an early-neutral-evaluation-style process within existing proceedings. Options under examination include a pilot Practice Direction, a stay in appropriate cases so parties can try an evaluation or another form of alternative dispute resolution, and possible costs consequences for parties that fail to engage constructively. A judge would give an early, non-binding view under court supervision. If that does not settle the dispute, the case can continue.

There is a small but telling document-control problem in the response. It identifies the existing Early Neutral Evaluation power as CPR 3.1(2)(m). The current Civil Procedure Rules place that language at rule 3.1(2)(p): an amendment effective on 1 October 2024 inserted a separate paragraph for ordering alternative dispute resolution and renumbered the ENE provision. The current rule still expressly permits an Early Neutral Evaluation aimed at helping parties settle. The stale reference does not erase that power, but implementation guidance should use the current citation.

The IPO proposal has a different position in the process. The office will test the feasibility and design of a voluntary, non-binding opinion service that could give parties an early indication of whether an offer falls within a plausible FRAND range. The Government has made no final decision to establish it. If feasibility is demonstrated, it intends to work with industry and technical experts on design and pilot the service; legislation may be needed. The service would not decide liability, validity or infringement, or set a binding global rate. That keeps it an aid to negotiation rather than a parallel court.

Other steps are similarly bounded. Rightsholders may be invited to submit standard-related patent information voluntarily; the IPO would not verify essentiality through that route. The Government will work on pre-action information exchange and licensing guidance, improve signposting to existing dispute-resolution services, and support better information about essentiality assessments. It declined both a new IPO essentiality-checking service and changes to injunction availability at this stage, saying the evidence did not show that the current framework systematically blocks UK market entry or forces product withdrawals.

For businesses, the announcement changes the work programme, not the rules governing a live licence today. A possible early opinion could reduce information gaps, but its practical value will depend on cost, access, confidentiality and how parties treat a non-binding range. The court route may help parties test positions sooner, but a court-based path may still be expensive for smaller implementers. The outcome to watch is whether the two proposals become usable processes without allowing an indicative view to be mistaken for a final determination.

Sources