On the 15th of July 2025, the UK Government released a consultation on SEPs (Standard Essential Patents). With the aim of facilitating innovation for UK businesses in the digital technology industry, the government issued the consultation to better understand implementers and holders’ attitudes towards the SEP ecosystem and what changes will be the most effective in tackling current obstacles to innovation.
Standard Essential Patents
Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) are patents which are essential to a technical standard, e.g. standards developed by IEEE, 3GPP and the like. Technical standards set out how devices interact with one another, such as during the process of wireless communication. The use of these standards enables all devices to seamlessly communicate with one another, regardless of their manufacturer or where they are located in the world. Hence, holders of SEPs must make their patents easily available by adhering to the terms of fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing. A transparent framework for and access to SEPs is vital to facilitate innovation in such technological fields, as well as ensure that different products and services produced by different companies are all safe and compatible.
The use of devices which can wirelessly communicate with other devices is continuing to rise, as Internet of Things (IoT) devices and vehicular wireless communications become more prevalent. Therefore, a greater number of industries and businesses are relying on technical standards so that their devices can communicate with other devices, resulting in an increased interest in SEPs.
Challenges in the SEP ecosystem
The consultation notes that the current ecosystem is somewhat challenging, particularly for smaller enterprises. As the importance of and need for SEPs in more industries rise, any limitations in the SEP framework could significantly impede innovation in technology.
For example, the consultation remarks that there is lack of transparency during SEP licensing processes, especially with regards to pricing, as business privately negotiate license rates (although there is more transparency in markets with developed SEP practices, such as in the field of cellular communications). The nature of these private negotiations leads to license rates remaining private, e.g. through NDAs. There is also no fixed procedure for establishing the rate, and this can result in unnecessarily lengthy timeframes for license agreements, as well as potential overpricing.
The possibility of knowledge and information gaps between implementers and holders of SEPs also extends to the definition of essentiality. Licensees and implementers may not have access to the information needed to determine which patents are truly essential to a standard. The consultation notes that more patents are declared to be SEPs than are actually needed for a technological standard, with the percentage of truly essential declared SEPs being potentially as low as 25-40%. This could be because patent holders have to divulge essentiality very early in the technical standard development process, pushing them to make assumptions. Again, this increases potential costs for licensees as they need to conduct extensive searches to understand which SEPs they must license to implement a standard. Moreover, the legal uncertainty may discourage businesses from entering the market at all.
The consultation and its proposals
Driven by a goal to boost and facilitate innovation in the UK, the consultation focuses on how the SEP ecosystem in the UK can operate more effectively and more transparently to support UK businesses. In releasing the consultation, the government’s main objective is to ensure implementers, especially SMEs, can successfully navigate the SEP ecosystem and FRAND licensing. They hope to explore ways of improving transparency, in terms of both pricing and essentiality, as well as procedures which could enhance efficiency in dispute resolution.
Transparency
The government proposes two main new mechanisms which attempt to address the national challenges mentioned in the previous section.
The Rate Determination Track (RDT) is one such mechanism which the government suggests introducing to the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC). The RDT, if initiated, would be a simpler and more efficient approach to the process of determining the correct license rate. The system would act as a supplement to the existing Small Claims and Multi Claims track.
Another mechanism referred to in the consultation is the provision of searchable standard-related patent information. At present, information on SEPs, including information regarding ownership of those SEPs, is often reported and updated inconsistently, and divulged in a fragmented fashion over multiple sources. To consolidate this information, the consultation proposes the introduction of an additional search function to the One IPO Search service for SEPs. The government is also gathering opinions on whether an essentiality assessment service through the UKIPO would be necessary to further improve transparency in what constitutes an SEP.
Litigation
Finally, the government is also seeking input on various suggestions which they believe will reduce the likelihood of litigation and improve dispute resolution. One such proposal is the implementation of a specialist pre-action protocol for SEP disputes which would potentially reduce information asymmetry, preventing disagreements during licensing and the need for litigation. In addition, the government is requesting feedback on the efficacy of current remedies offered in SEP litigation and on the level of awareness of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services.
Author’s comment
It is positive to see the government take steps to consult with users of the SEP ecosystem. However, it remains to be seen whether the steps proposed in the consultation will result in meaningful change, particularly for small enterprises as intended. Specifically, IPEC trials, which small enterprises are most likely to favour, are already extremely efficient in respect of the time and costs involved. It is not clear how the proposed RDT could be more efficient in either respect.
A centralised repository of searchable standard-related patent information could be useful, but it remains unclear who will decide which cases are essential and added to the repository (and which cases are not), and how that difficult and subjective decision will be made.
It will be interesting to see what the government proposes once the responses to the consultation have been reviewed. The deadline for responding to the consultation is the 7th of October 2025 and, therefore, further announcements are expected next year.
You can read the full consultation here.
