REGISTER now: Visser ai webinar - BEYOND THE HYPE: AI IN PATENT PROSECUTION
​

HMRC opens consultation on proposed changes to Patent Box

No items found.
​
October 22, 2015
Additional information
Chevron icon
Info
Tags
Patent Strategy
Table of contents
Chevron icon
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

Invalidity of juicer patent upheld on appeal
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal upheld the invalidity of Hurom’s juicer patent for lack of inventive step, while clarifying the admissibility requirements for patent amendments and the use of the unamended description when construing amended claims. It also confirmed the UPC’s jurisdiction over infringement in Poland despite Poland not being a UPCA Contracting Member State, but found that Hurom had failed to establish infringement under Polish law.
​
Evidence preservation doesn’t stretch to interrogation
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that evidence-preservation orders may be granted ex parte where there is a demonstrable risk that evidence could be destroyed or become unavailable, and that such orders may extend to relevant commercial and promotional documents. However, Art. 60 UPCA does not permit a bailiff or expert to question the defendant’s personnel on substantive technical matters, which must instead be handled under the Court’s control.
​
UPC Court of Appeal clarifies claim construction, the role of party experts, and provisional measures in direct-competition cases
03 November 2026
The CoA’s decision of 30 April 2025 in Insulet v EOFlow provides important guidance on claim construction, the role of party-appointed experts and the requirements for provisional injunctions.
​