UK SEP Consultation Response 2026

Published 21 October 20268 minute read

The UK government has published its response to the consultation on standard essential patents. It will not create a new rate setting court, will not check essentiality and will not change the law on injunctions. It will instead work with the judiciary on an early FRAND determination inside existing court proceedings.

On 13 October 2026 the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) published the government response to the consultation on standard essential patents (SEPs). The consultation ran from 15 July to 7 October 2025. It asked 47 questions and received 93 responses from rightsholders, implementers, small firms, lawyers, academics and trade bodies.

This note explains what the UK SEP consultation response decides, what it drops and what it leaves open. It then compares the UK route with Europe, India and the United States, and sets out practical steps for SEP holders and implementers.

What the consultation proposed

The consultation tested several measures. The most ambitious was a Rate Determination Track in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC). It would have set FRAND rates in cases where infringement, essentiality and validity were not in dispute.

The consultation also asked whether the IPO should offer an essentiality opinion service. It asked what patent information rightsholders should give the IPO, whether that should be mandatory and what sanctions might follow. It sought evidence on whether the threat of an injunction distorts licensing talks. It also asked about a SEP pre action protocol and about extending IPO mediation to SEP disputes.

What the government will do

An early FRAND determination anchored in the courts. The government will start discussions with the judiciary on a court based mechanism similar to early neutral evaluation. It would use the existing case management powers in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, including rule 3.1(2)(m). The response notes that the Court of Appeal confirmed this power in Lomax v Lomax. Options include a pilot Practice Direction, possibly under CPR Part 51. A pilot could allow an automatic stay in suitable FRAND cases so that the parties can attempt early evaluation or other ADR. A judge would give an early view that does not bind the parties. If they do not settle, the claim continues. The mechanism would apply once a claim has been issued. The response says it would not create a new standalone forum for setting rates. No start date is given.

Consultation on an IPO FRAND opinion service. The IPO will consult stakeholders this autumn on the feasibility of a voluntary service. It would give a non binding view on whether a licence offer falls within a plausible FRAND range. It would not decide liability, validity, infringement or a binding rate. The response accepts that legislation may be needed.

Voluntary SEP information. Rightsholders will be able to give the IPO standard related information about their patents. This would happen at grant, and at renewal for European patents designating the UK. It would apply to future standards only. The IPO will not verify essentiality. The information will sit within the IPO's One IPO search service. The IPO is working with WIPO and the EPO so that the UK route complements international databases such as PATENTSCOPE and the EPO Patent Standards Explorer. Mandatory disclosure will be considered only if later evaluation shows significant non compliance.

Guidance and pre litigation conduct. The government will develop good faith licensing guidance with industry, supported by a technical working group. It will also work on FRAND licensing guidelines and assess the feasibility of a targeted SEP pre action approach within the existing civil procedure framework. It will improve signposting to ADR and may expand the IPO's SEPs Resource Hub, which opened in July 2024.

Key points

The government response on SEPs was published on 13 October 2026, after 93 consultation responses.
No IPEC Rate Determination Track, no IPO essentiality checking service and no new limits on injunctions.
The judiciary will be asked to consider an early, non binding FRAND evaluation within issued court claims.
The IPO will consult this autumn on whether a voluntary FRAND opinion service is feasible.
Patent owners may give the IPO standard related information voluntarily, for future standards only.

What the government dropped, and why

Rate Determination Track. The government found it hard to separate rate setting from the wider dispute. It also pointed to complex evidence and valuation methods, and to a real risk that the hoped for speed would not appear. It also raised concerns about the quality of outcomes. In its words, the evidence did not show that a dedicated IPEC track would give a “sufficiently clear, workable route” to FRAND rates.

Essentiality checking service. Respondents did not make a clear case for it. The government cited cost, delivery risk, low expected uptake and the danger of drawing the IPO into a quasi judicial role. It will instead explore non binding best practice principles for essentiality assessments.

Injunctions. The government considers the current framework broadly adequate. It found the evidence about the threat of injunctions largely anecdotal. It therefore sees no case for legislation at this stage.

What the response does not decide

The response changes no law today. It does not alter the power of the English courts to set the terms of a global FRAND licence. The UK Supreme Court confirmed that power in Unwired Planet v Huawei [2020] UKSC 37.

It also leaves untouched the interim licence declarations developed by the Court of Appeal. In Panasonic v Xiaomi [2024] EWCA Civ 1143 and Lenovo v Ericsson [2025] EWCA Civ 182, the court declared that a willing licensor would grant an interim licence pending the FRAND trial. Any early evaluation pilot would sit alongside these tools. It would not replace them.

Several measures depend on further work or a legislative vehicle. The response says they are likely to be implemented over a longer timeframe. The opinion service, the information route and any pilot Practice Direction all remain proposals.

How Europe, India and the US compare

European Union, EPO and UPC. The European Commission withdrew its proposed SEP Regulation in its 2025 work programme, citing no foreseeable agreement. The European Parliament has challenged the withdrawal before the CJEU. Without a regulation, the framework remains the CJEU judgment in Huawei v ZTE (C-170/13). It sets the steps a SEP holder must follow before seeking an injunction without abusing a dominant position. The Unified Patent Court grants injunctions on SEPs within that framework. Its mediation and arbitration centre is now consulting on FRAND guidelines, as explained in our note on the UPC PMAC FRAND guidelines.

India. India has no SEP statute, register or office guidance. Disputes are decided mainly by the Delhi High Court. That court often orders implementers to deposit pro tem security while the suit continues. Our note on SEP evidence and claim mapping in India explains how those cases are proved. Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 requires mediation before a commercial suit is filed, unless urgent interim relief is sought. India therefore already has a court led model. The UK idea of an early judicial view on rates has no direct Indian equivalent.

United States. The US has no SEP specific statute or rate setting forum. In June 2022 the Department of Justice, the USPTO and NIST withdrew their 2019 policy statement on remedies for SEPs. Injunctions follow the four factor test in eBay v MercExchange, 547 U.S. 388 (2006). FRAND disputes usually reach the courts as contract, infringement or antitrust claims.

Japan. The UK response notes that the Tokyo District Court has introduced SEP juridical mediation and SEP litigation guidelines. In our view, that fits a wider pattern. Courts are offering structured settlement routes, while governments step back from setting rates.

Practical steps for SEP holders

Plan for an early judicial view. If a pilot arrives, an English claim may lead to an early evaluation of your offer. Build a rate case that can be explained at that stage.
Consider voluntary disclosure. A clean record of standard related patents at the IPO may help in negotiations once the route opens.
Respond to the call for evidence. The opinion service is still being designed. Licensors should say what would make it useful or harmful.

Practical steps for implementers

Keep the willing licensee record. English courts look closely at conduct, both for interim licence declarations and for costs. An early evaluation pilot will do the same.
Use the opinion service, if it is built. A non binding view on whether an offer is within a FRAND range could support a counter offer.
Indian handset and IoT makers. Groups facing Delhi suits and English or UPC claims should run one global strategy. Our international patent support for Europe, the US and PCT filings covers that planning.

Frequently asked questions

What did the UK government decide on standard essential patents?

It published its consultation response on 13 October 2026. It will explore a court based early FRAND evaluation, consult on a voluntary IPO opinion service, create a voluntary SEP information route and develop guidance. It will not proceed, at this stage, with the IPEC Rate Determination Track or an IPO essentiality checking service.

Will the UK limit injunctions for SEPs?

Not at this stage. The government found the current framework broadly adequate and the evidence about injunction threats largely anecdotal. It will develop licensing negotiation guidance with industry instead.

Is there a UK SEP register?

Not yet. The government plans a voluntary route for rightsholders to give the IPO standard related patent information, for future standards only, within the One IPO search service. The IPO will not verify essentiality. Implementation depends on further work and possibly legislation.

UK SEP consultation response. What changes for FRAND disputes in England.