The UK government has outlined a targeted package intended to make standard-essential patent licensing more transparent and help businesses resolve disputes earlier, following a consultation that received 93 responses.
The Intellectual Property Office plans guidance, improved information and further work on a possible opinion service for fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing terms. It has decided against creating a standalone rate-determination track or a government-run essentiality checking service at this stage.
What is a standard-essential patent?
A standard-essential patent, or SEP, protects technology that must be used to implement a technical standard. A smartphone, connected vehicle or medical device may rely on many patented inventions simply to communicate with compatible systems.
Where a patent holder has committed to licence on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms—usually shortened to FRAND—the difficult question is often what those terms mean in a particular negotiation.
What is the government proposing?
The IPO will work with the judiciary on the possibility of an early FRAND determination within existing court proceedings in England and Wales. It also plans licensing guidelines explaining how parties should approach that pathway and any future IPO opinion service.
Other measures include a voluntary route for patent holders to provide standards-related information, stronger pre-litigation guidance and expanded support for businesses that have limited licensing experience.
How would an IPO opinion service work?
No final service has been approved. The government will seek evidence on whether the IPO could provide a voluntary, non-binding early view on whether a proposed licence offer falls within a FRAND range.
Such an opinion could narrow disagreements before they become full litigation, but its usefulness would depend on expertise, speed, evidence requirements and how courts or negotiating parties treat the result.
Why does this matter beyond smartphones?
Technical standards increasingly underpin connected manufacturing, vehicles, healthcare equipment, semiconductors, artificial intelligence and future 6G networks. Businesses entering these sectors may face complex patent portfolios without having dedicated licensing teams.
Clearer information can reduce uncertainty for implementers while preserving returns for organisations that invest in research and contribute technology to standards.
What did the government decide not to do?
The consultation did not produce what the government considered sufficient evidence for a standalone court rate-determination track or an IPO-run essentiality checking service. It also rejected further limits on injunctions, saying the evidence did not show the current framework was systematically blocking market entry or causing firms to withdraw products.
Those decisions may remain debated. The announced approach favours guidance, voluntary information and earlier dispute resolution rather than a new compulsory licensing tribunal.
What happens next?
The IPO will carry out technical work and invite evidence on the possible opinion service. It will also develop guidance and expand its SEP resource hub with industry input.
Businesses should treat the announcement as a policy direction, not an immediate change to licence terms or court procedure. Detailed designs and implementation dates are still to come.
Reporting basis
This article is based on the Intellectual Property Office’s 13 October 2026 consultation response summary. It describes policy proposals in general terms and is not legal advice.
Featured image: Vasilis Chatzopoulos via Unsplash.