EPO and ITU cooperate to improve transparency in patents and ICT standards

No items found.
May 27, 2011
#
Digital

The European Patent Office (EPO) and the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which creates Information and Communication Technology (ICT) standards, have announced that they have signed an agreement to share information to help improve the quality of patents. This is the first agreement that the ITU has ever concluded with a patent office.

Standards define certain minimum criteria that, if followed, help to improve interoperability amongst products that might otherwise not work together. For example, standards relating to the GSM technology make sure that mobile phones work across different networks in various countries. Thus, standards aim to create a level playing field on which companies can compete by using common platforms that ensure freedom of user choice.

By contrast, a patent provides an exclusive right that allows a patentee to exclude others from practising the patented invention. If the implementation of a particular standard necessitates use of a technology protected by one or more so-called “essential” patents, the patentee could use the essential patent to prevent implementation of the standard, although often a patentee licenses the patented invention to boost their licensing revenue.

During the standard-setting process, members submit a wide range of draft proposals, some of which are adopted in a given standard. Whether or not the submissions are adopted in the standard, they can still count as prior art against patent applications filed after these submissions are made. The agreement between the EPO and the ITU will enable the EPO to gain access to all ITU documentation, and eventually make it available to its examiners in a searchable form. This might seem like a fairly inconsequential development when the EPO has access to such a large amount of potential prior art already, but it could have a huge impact on patent quality. In the telecommunications field, it has been estimated that 35% of all prior art citations relied upon by the EPO originate from Standard Setting Organisations, such as the ITU.

For the ITU, this agreement will allow them to link their patent database to the EPO’s database, which will help them to assess whether a particular technology that may be relevant to a standard is patented. This can improve the legal certainty for the implementers of standards, as is evident from the dispute surrounding the JPEG standard for digital image compression. A patentee asserted that it owned patent rights covering the JPEG technology approximately 10 years after the JPEG standard was issued, as a result catching the implementers of the JPEG standards unaware.

The EPO has previously made similar information-sharing agreements with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standards Association, which creates standards relating to electrical and electronic technologies and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), which produces standards in the field of telecommunications.

It is expected that this agreement will benefit patentees, implementers of standards and consumers, while also improving the quality of patents that relate to technology that may cover, or be covered by, standards.

Recent 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.