In July 2025, we reported that the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) had launched a consultation on Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The aim of the consultation was to provide greater transparency and predictability in SEP licensing and to improve access to efficient dispute resolution, especially for SMEs. The consultation closed on 7 October 2025 and on 13 October 2026, the government published its response.
The commitment SEP holders give to standards bodies to license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms leaves plenty of room for dispute. There is no single methodology for setting a FRAND rate, and comparable licence terms are usually confidential.
When the consultation was launched, the UK government put forward two primary proposals: a new specialist Rate Determination Track (RDT) at the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC), and mandatory disclosure of standard-related patent information to the UKIPO. The RDT was intended to offer a quicker, more affordable route to FRAND licence rates where infringement, essentiality and validity issues were not in dispute. Mandatory disclosure would have required SEP holders to provide the UKIPO with information on how their patents relate to particular standards so that businesses could more easily identify which patents they need to license.
Following the consultation, the government has stepped back from both headline proposals. The RDT will not go ahead, at least for now, and disclosure will be voluntary rather than mandatory. Instead, the government has opted for what it calls a "targeted and proportionate" package, much of which is still at the exploratory stage.
Who had their say?
The UKIPO received 93 responses, including from the UK, the US, Europe and Asia. The list of respondents includes SEP holders (such as Ericsson, Nokia, Qualcomm and InterDigital) alongside large implementers (including Apple, Google, Amazon and Microsoft), carmakers (Jaguar Land Rover, Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz), patent-licensing pools (Avanci, Sisvel and Access Advance), professional bodies (including CIPA and the IP Bar Association) and a number of UK SMEs.
Unsurprisingly, the government observed that any discussion of the SEP ecosystem "will usually prompt polarised views...". Rightsholders broadly said the market works despite some information gaps and occasional poor behaviour, and that existing non-regulatory measures could do the job without further regulation. Implementers argued that market distortions warrant intervention, pointing to limited rate transparency, uncertainty over which patents are truly essential, and weaker negotiating power for SMEs
No Rate Determination Track
The most notable outcome is the decision not to introduce the RDT within the IPEC. Respondents on both sides broadly supported the aim of a quicker and cheaper route to a FRAND licensing rate, but support for the track itself was "often conditional rather than unqualified". The practical difficulties of implementation were also highlighted: it is difficult to separate rate-setting from wider disputes over infringement, validity and essentiality; FRAND valuation is complex; and there was a risk that a standalone track would not actually be any faster.
In its place, the government will explore an alternative package of three measures:
Court-anchored early FRAND determination: working with the judiciary to explore an early neutral evaluation process within existing court proceedings in England and Wales, giving an early, non-binding indication of FRAND terms from a judge. A pilot Practice Direction is under consideration, potentially with an automatic stay of FRAND cases to allow this to happen and costs consequences for parties who fail to engage constructively.
UKIPO FRAND opinion service: a voluntary, non-binding service that would indicate whether a proposed licence offer falls within a plausible FRAND range. It would not set a binding global rate or decide validity or infringement. The UKIPO will now gather evidence on whether such a service is feasible, and legislation may be needed.
FRAND licensing guidelines: non-binding guidelines, to be developed once the other options are clearer, setting out how parties should use the new measures together.
Disclosure: voluntary, for now
The proposal for mandatory disclosure of standard-related patent information has become a voluntary scheme. Rightsholders will be asked to provide information at grant (and for European patents validated in the UK, at renewal), which will then be searchable through the UKIPO's 'One IPO' search service. The scheme will apply to future standards only, and the UKIPO will not verify essentiality. The government has, however, made it clear that if future evaluation shows "significant non-compliance", it will consider whether mandatory disclosure or sanctions are justified. Even the voluntary scheme may require legislation.
For patent attorneys, this is perhaps the most direct practical change: it adds a new decision on what to disclose for clients with standards-related portfolios. The detail is still to be agreed with industry, but requests will be limited to information already used in licensing practice.
What else is (and is not) changing?
Essentiality: there will be no UKIPO-run essentiality checking service for now, partly over concerns about drawing government into a "quasi-judicial role". The government may instead publish non-binding best practice principles for commercial essentiality assessments, and will keep an eye on AI-assisted tools.
Injunctions: no legislative change. Implementers raised concerns about the threat of injunctions pressuring smaller businesses into accepting supra-FRAND terms, but the evidence was largely anecdotal and the actual grant of injunctions disrupting UK market access was described as rare. Instead, the UKIPO will develop good-faith negotiation guidance.
Pre-action conduct: a SEP-specific pre-action approach, within the existing civil procedure framework, is being assessed. Respondents across the SEP ecosystem indicated that the general rules do not secure early enough exchange of information in SEP disputes.
Alternative Dispute Resolution: there will be no new mediation or arbitration service. The government's view is that the problem is not a lack of available services but parties' reluctance to use them. It will instead improve signposting to existing services and expand the UKIPO's SEP Resource Hub.
Looking ahead
The implementer-backed Fair Standards Alliance called the package "a constructive first step" in a recent press release, but warned it would do little to rebalance negotiating power unless implemented more boldly. Rightsholders, who generally argued that the UK system already works, are likely to be relieved that there will be no legislative change to injunctions and that mandatory disclosure is off the table, at least for now.
Timing remains uncertain for the new package of SEP measures. Several of the measures may require legislation, and the government acknowledges that these depend on a suitable legislative vehicle and are likely to be implemented over a longer timeframe.
Even so, the response is a clear signal that the UK wants to remain a forum of choice for global SEP disputes without unsettling the balance that has made it attractive. Whether a judge-led early evaluation and a UKIPO "FRAND opinion" can make that system genuinely accessible to SMEs will be the real test.
