How should patent pools and Licensing Negotiating Groups (LNGs) be dealt with under the European Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation (TTBER) guidelines, which govern technology licensing agreements?   

From the perspective of IP Europe members, the short answer is that patent pools should continue to be treated as pro-competitive, in line with the approach already recognised by the European Commission and other competition authorities. In contrast, LNGs are potentially anti-competitive and should not be encouraged. 

This question arose in the context of the European Commission’s call for evidence and consultation on the TTBER, which will expire on the 30^th of April 2026.   

You can read our full response to the consultation here. This article provides a short summary of our views.  

Competition and innovation

First, a bit of background: The TTBER plays a critical role in balancing competition law with incentives for innovation, particularly for companies engaged in collaborative research and the development of international technology standards. 

IP Europe represents organisations that both develop patented technologies and implement others’ innovations. Our members contribute technologies to open standards (e.g., wireless communications, video codecs, and battery charging standards, among others) and rely on patents to protect and monetise their investments.  

We value the TTBER’s importance in fostering open ecosystems while safeguarding intellectual property (IP) rights. The TTBER’s current framework supports this model by: 

• Reducing transaction costs through predictable licensing rules. 

• Encouraging participation in patent pools, which streamline licensing for complex standards. 

• Providing legal certainty for companies to share their IP without fearing inadvertent breaches of competition law. 

Key recommendations on patent pools 

Patent pools aggregate patents for standards such as 5G or Wi-Fi and provide pro-competitive benefits such as:  

• Lower licensing costs  

• Increased transparency and predictability for implementers; and  

• Support to SMEs by simplifying access to essential technologies. 

The safe harbour for patent pools in the current Guidelines should be preserved and updated to reflect evolving practices, such as dynamic royalty structures and hybrid licensing models. 

IP Europe’s members participate in patent pools as licensors, licensees and pool administrators, giving us substantial insight into how these pools function in practice.  In our view, the current Guidelines have worked well in providing legal certainty for businesses and allowing for new pools and licensing programs to emerge and grow, both in the automotive sector and in some IoT verticals.  

Based on  our experience, patent pools operate independently of both licensors and licensees. This independence ensures that they act as neutral mediators between the views of licensors and licensees and provide the necessary competition safeguards against the exchange of sensitive commercial information. 

Importantly, the Support Study for the Evaluation of the TTBER, published last year, recognised the pro-competitive effects of pools.  

We encourage the Commission to keep a pro-innovation stance in the Guidelines and to avoid including  provisions that may make it harder for pools to form and operate. We are concerned that proposals by some stakeholders for more stringent provisions on patent pools could have unintended negative consequences. 

Buyers’ cartel? Nein, danke!  

IP Europe believes that it would be premature to include guidance on LNGs in the form of safe harbour conditions in the Guidelines at this stage.  

Indeed, LNGs raise serious and yet untested competition concerns. Among these is the risk that LNGs could serve as a front for buyers’ cartels, facilitate coordinated hold-out strategies, and enable implementers of standardised technology, many of whom are direct competitors, to engage in anti-competitive information exchange and/or collusion. 

Furthermore, LNGs do not operate as a reverse patent pool, offering a one-stop shop for mutually beneficial licensing solutions. An LNG would be created with the primary goal of unnaturally depressing licensing fees and terms and conditions below FRAND levels by exercising monopsony power.  

In summary, IP Europe calls for Guidelines that prioritise practical, market-driven solutions and avoid encouraging anti-competitive behaviour by implementers of standardised technologies. By doing so, the EU can continue to nurture innovation while ensuring competition remains vibrant and inclusive.