In comments for the Office of the US Trade Representative’s annual Special 301 report, multiple major trade organizations called on the US government to place the European Union and United Kingdom on IP watch lists.
US intellectual property organizations representing both patent owners and licensees want the government to focus on standard essential patent (SEP) policy in the US Trade Representative’s annual Special 301 report. In comments submitted last week, multiple groups said the European Union and United Kingdom should be placed on watch lists for intellectual property rights.The Special 301 report places countries on either a watch list or priority watch list, denoting an increasing level of concern for those countries’ IP enforcement ecosystems. The report has historically focused on counterfeiting and piracy enforcement and patent policy most relevant to the pharmaceutical industry — such as regulatory data protection and compulsory licensing — though SEPs were a focus of many of the comments submitted to USTR this year.
In 2025, eight countries were placed on the priority watch list and 18 on the watch list (see here). The UK has never been placed on either list since the report’s start in 1989, and the EU was last on the watch list in 2009 over concerns related to geographic indications in copyright law.
— United Kingdom —
US IP organizations, including ACT | The App Association, the Council for Innovation Promotion (C4IP) and the Innovation Alliance (IA), called for pressure on the UK government due to a series of recent decisions in UK courts weighing in on SEP enforcement.
ACT requested that the country be placed on the priority watch list, writing that the UK’s SEP framework “creates significant barriers for innovative implementers and hinders market growth,” with emphasis on the danger posed by the “coercive use of injunctions in [fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory] FRAND disputes.”
In the last year, the UK Court of Appeal has shown an increasing willingness to grant interim licenses, even enforcing them on unwilling licensees (see here), and dismissing a suit on jurisdictional grounds seeking a ruling that pool administrators have FRAND obligations (see here).
The case over FRAND obligations, Tesla v. InterDigital, is set to go before the UK Supreme Court this year (see here).
C4IP requested a watch list designation, citing the same court cases and the UK Intellectual Property Office’s (UKIPO) promise to move forward with a broad SEP regulation in 2026, “both of which seem poised to weaken patent rights and hurt innovators.”
IA, which represents patent owners, also called out the interim license approach by UK courts, comparing it to that of Chinese courts.
“USTR has previously expressed concern over China’s use of [anti-suit injunctions],” the group wrote. “The same trade and IP concerns apply to the UK as with China: court-ordered arrangements that apply globally undermine privately negotiated patent licensing and favor implementers who can seek court-ordered licenses in the UK or China rather than face the threat of injunction against the unlicensed use of the patent.”
Interim licenses, IA said, “shortcut the negotiation process by dragging U.S. patent holders into overseas courts, which order them to grant licenses on non-market terms and [enjoins them] from enforcing their IP anywhere else in the world.”
“Rather than promote the commercialization of innovative technologies, these cases suppress licensing royalties, reducing the ability of U.S. innovators to invest in cutting-edge R&D used by foreign implementers,” IA said.
ACT defended anti-suit injunctions, however, writing that they can be appropriately employed in a “case-by-case basis under a carefully balanced legal test,” and have been previously in US courts.
— European Union —
While the Unified Patent Court has made the EU a prominent venue for patent litigation in the last year, it has also drawn the ire of standard implementers who warn that SEP owners are abusing the venue’s broad injunctive relief, applicable in all 18 of its member nations.
ACT wrote that the UPC has “become an attractive venue for SEP holders who use the court to leverage their dominant market position against potential licensees,” pointing to a suit brought by Huawei against Netgear at the Munich Local Division in 2024 that resulted in a victory for the Chinese company (see here).
The Fair Standards Alliance (FSA), which also mostly represents implementers, warned that the UPC’s first FRAND decision in Panasonic v. OPPO in late 2024 (see here) signaled that the court would align itself with the approach of German courts, which it views as harmful to implementers.
“Injunctions issued by German courts, and now the UPC, are routinely used to compel acceptance of global licenses, including for U.S. patents, on terms dictated by German-style jurisprudence rather than by U.S. law,” the alliance wrote.
Also pointing to the 2024 Huawei v. Netgear decision at the UPC, the FSA warned that the UPC’s willingness to grant injunctions prevents US courts from weighing in on the issues, as defendants are pressured to quickly settle to avoid significant operating costs. In Huawei’s case, the parties settled weeks after the UPC decision, despite an ongoing suit in US district court.
FSA also argued that recent UPC decisions advocating for the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction (see here), particularly in relation to injunctions, threaten US companies and undermine the US justice system.
— Potential Regulation —
The new pressure to list the EU and UK comes as each jurisdiction considers significant regulation for SEPs. UKIPO solicited comments last year for a broad SEP regulation, which is expected this year (see here), and the EU Commission proposed its own SEP regulation in 2023.
The EU regulation proposed a tribunal under the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to assist in SEP royalty rate determinations as a step before patent litigation could begin, with the hope of reducing the number of cases filed. Critics warned that the administrative costs and delays of the tribunal would incentivize patent owners to pursue litigation in other countries instead of the UPC.
The regulation was withdrawn by the Commission last summer amidst that criticism, including opposition from some UPC judges (see here). In November, the EU Parliament voted to sue the Commission over its right to withdraw the regulation (see here). The suit remains ongoing.
In a panel hosted by the University of Southern California Gould School of Law last week, Bird & Bird partner Richard Vary said that he believes the EU regulation is “very much not dead.” Vary spent a decade as Nokia’s head of litigation, focusing on SEP infringement suits.
“For anyone who thinks that their SEP regulation and government involvement is boring, what's been going on at the European Commission is more like a season of West Wing in terms of ups and downs,” he said.
“To many of us, the idea of a parliament getting involved in SEP regulation is remarkable, the idea that our legislative bodies have the time or the interest in SEPs to do this sort of thing,” he continued. “But the idea of Parliament challenging an executive function’s decision in the courts is even more surprising.”
Vary predicted the case could take up to three years to resolve.
ACT criticized the withdrawal, saying it “represents a refusal to correct a known trade barrier and has sparked a constitutional crisis.”
“This ongoing lawsuit underscores the proposal's importance and the profound flaws in the EU's legislative process on this issue,” the association wrote. “The continued absence of a regulatory framework leaves U.S. companies exposed to the very abuses the proposal aimed to curb.”
The FSA similarly criticized the move by the Commission, writing that “the decision to withdraw this proposal abandons a critical opportunity to restore balance, transparency, and predictability to SEP licensing in Europe, and leaves unaddressed the structural conditions that enable
coercive injunction practices.”
While the IA welcomed the withdrawal of the regulation, it warned that continued work on a pre-litigation tribunal for rate-setting “continues to risk devaluing U.S. innovation.”
“Any future EU SEP initiative must not place asymmetric burdens on SEP licensors or undermine the global norm of good-faith, private sector-driven licensing,” the alliance wrote. “Instead, transparency and efficiency measures must be balanced and protect patent-holder rights. The EU Commission’s approach, had it proceeded, would have legitimized a government rate-setting mechanism for SEPs – exactly the kind of ‘government-imposed conditions or incentives for technology transfer’ that USTR has called ‘unfair and harmful.’”
At the same USC panel, UKIPO head of SEPs Jamie Lewis said that the future UK regulation will likely be focused on eliminating barriers to innovation for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) that can be disadvantaged by large, incumbent firms. He said UKIPO’s consultations with stakeholders so far have focused on three main objectives.
“Our first objective was helping implementers, especially SMEs, navigate and better understand the SEPs ecosystem and the (FRAND) licensing ecosystem,” he said. “Our second objective, we were really focused on how we can improve transparency in the ecosystem, and that included around pricing and essentiality. Our third objective which we put forward was achieving greater efficiency in respect of dispute resolution, including arbitration and mediation.”
Lewis acknowledged the desire for significant reforms, but said “we need to take some modest steps.”
For now, UKIPO in is “analysis mode,” still determining the next steps for a potential regulation, he said.
“It's not easy subject matter to find the right balance, and you know, carefully thinking about the impacts of any sort of recommendations, it will be in the ministerial hands,” Lewis said. “It's down to ministers whether they decide we intervene or put in place any measure ... Just bear with us.”
Beyond the EU and UK, organizations also raised concerns about the increasing prominence of Brazil and India in SEP litigation due to the countries’ reputations for quick injunctive relief. ACT argued that both countries should be placed on the Special 301 priority watch.
“Small inventors, including ACT members, rely on the FRAND construct to develop cutting-edge technology around the globe, which is defeated by the ability for some SEP holders to hold international technical standards hostage,” the association wrote.
The Special 301 report is usually published by USTR at the end of April.
Please email editors@mlex.com to contact the editorial staff regarding this story, or to submit the names of lawyers and advisers.