UK IPO Consults on a FRAND Opinion Service for SEP Licence Offers
The UK is testing a mechanism that sits between party-to-party negotiation and formal pricing by a court or arbitrator. On 20 October 2026, the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) opened a call for evidence on whether an IPO-led FRAND Opinion Service is feasible: the idea is for the IPO to give an opinion on whether a standard-essential patent (SEP) licence offer falls within a 'plausible FRAND range'. The government says it has not decided to introduce it; the call for evidence closes on 15 December 2026.
As envisaged, the service would be voluntary, independent, advisory and non-binding: an early written opinion on whether a licence offer sits within a plausible FRAND range, based on the economic, valuation and licensing evidence the parties submit, to support negotiation. The boundaries are drawn clearly — it would not decide whether a patent is standard-essential, would not touch validity, infringement or damages, would not impose licence terms, and would not replace negotiation, ADR or the courts. A 'plausible FRAND range' means a set of licensing outcomes the available evidence could reasonably support; it is not meant to create a new legal test.
The idea grows out of the earlier SEPs consultation. The government is not reconsulting on a standalone Rate Determination Track in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) — the evidence did not support that as a workable route — but respondents broadly backed the goals of a quicker, cheaper and more predictable way to assess FRAND positions, especially for SMEs and parties with less SEP-licensing experience.
The notable part is that this may be more than 'another ADR'. An early, official opinion on whether an offer sits within a reasonable range could become a new reference point in SEP negotiations; the government suggests that, over time, it could build into a new 'data point' for SEP licensing, adding certainty and efficiency.
Three questions are worth tracking. First, whether opinions would eventually be published, and whether named or anonymised — itself one of the questions in the call for evidence. Second, how the parties' confidential licensing data and evidence would be handled. Third, how much evidential weight a non-binding IPO opinion would carry in UK FRAND litigation. Note too that, for the call for evidence itself, responses — along with the respondent's name and organisation — may be made public under the Freedom of Information Act.
J&C recommends that SEP holders and implementers — especially those with a UK footprint or SMEs new to SEP licensing — watch this closely: if the service launches, it could offer a lower-cost early read on FRAND positioning. Those who want to shape the design should submit evidence before 15 December through the official channels (Citizen Space or email) and prepare solid economic, valuation and comparable-licence evidence — because the opinion would turn on exactly that, and anything submitted may be made public.
Source: www.gov.uk
