HMRC opens consultation on proposed changes to Patent Box

No items found.
​
October 22, 2015
#
Patent Strategy
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

A consultation has been announced by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) seeking the views of patent holders and interested parties on proposed changes to the UK Patent Box scheme.

The Patent Box is an initiative designed to make the UK tax regime competitive for innovative high-tech companies by offering a reduced rate of corporation tax on profits attributed to patented innovations. Since the Patent Box began in April 2013, 639 companies have benefited from these reduced tax rates.

The changes have been proposed in order to comply with a new international framework for preferential tax regimes for IP, developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which is intended to harmonise the various preferential tax regimes that operate within the G20 member countries.

As the HMRC consultation document explains "The central point is that for a business to gain the benefit of a preferential regime, it should have conducted the substantial activities which generated the income benefiting from that regime." The proposed changes therefore include a requirement that links the benefits under the Patent Box to R&D expenditure incurred in the development of the IP. This is known as the nexus approach.

The joint HM Treasury and HMRC consultation will affect UK businesses which hold and exploit patents, as well as those business looking to invest in IP for the first time. The consultation sets out the government’s preferred approach, within the new international framework and seeks views on how the UK can form a set of rules for the Patent Box.

The consultation document can be viewed here. Responses to the consultation should be submitted to the HMRC by 4 December 2015.

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
​
Litigation insurance as security for costs
30 March 2026
In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.
​
National law applies to claims for loss of profit if the events occurred before the UPC came into force
30 March 2026
In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.
​