UK government launches call for evidence on feasibility of UKIPO-led FRAND opinion service
Published on 2 November 2026
Indications given about scope of the potential FRAND opinion service, while guidance sought from stakeholders on its workability and design
At a glance
The UKIPO has launched a call for evidence on the feasibility and design of a voluntary, non-binding FRAND opinion service.
The proposed service would provide early written opinions on whether licensing offers fall within a "plausible FRAND range".
Stakeholders have until 15 December 2026 to respond and influence whether and how the service is ultimately launched.
Following the government's recent response to its consultation on the standard essential patent (SEP) ecosystem in the UK, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has now published a call for evidence on the feasibility of a UKIPO-led opinion service. The proposed service will assess whether parties' proposed licensing rates are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND).
This comes just days after the government outlined that it would only take forward a more limited package of changes compared to those envisaged in its original consultation. Instead of introducing a FRAND rate determination track in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, the government is considering three complementary measures aimed at providing lower-cost routes to assessing FRAND rates, with one of the measures being a UKIPO-led FRAND opinion service.
The UKIPO is now seeking input from stakeholders on the feasibility and design of this potential opinion service. Its call for evidence is open until 15 December 2026 and offers those involved in the SEP ecosystem the opportunity to influence the final shape of any UKIPO-led service. The call for evidence gives valuable insights into what such a service might look like; for example, the service would be voluntary and advisory in nature only.
Scope and purpose of the proposed service
At this stage, the UKIPO has not committed to introducing a UKIPO-led rate setting service: it is consulting on its feasibility and potential design. However, the call for evidence provides a set of assumptions about the service, which give a good indication of the government's thinking on its potential scope and purpose.
Respondents are asked to assume that the service would be voluntary, independent and non-binding. It would provide an early written opinion on whether a licensing offer falls within "a plausible FRAND range", in order to support negotiations and potentially narrow or resolve disputes.
Importantly, the service would not determine patent essentiality, validity or infringement and would have no power to award damages or impose licence terms. In addition, participation in the service would not prevent parties from pursuing litigation or any alternative dispute resolution (ADR) options.
The UKIPO highlighted that the purpose of the proposed service would be to support parties during licensing negotiations and to help them understand their respective licensing positions, rather than replacing negotiation, ADR or court proceedings. In doing so, the service aims to facilitate earlier conclusion of negotiations and generate a new data point for SEP licensing discussions, with the broader goal of increasing certainty and efficiency in licensing outcomes over time.
How should the service be designed?
The questions are organised into four parts. Part A focuses on demand and scope, asking respondents to assess whether an independent UKIPO-led opinion would be useful during SEP licensing negotiations. Questions also address the stage of negotiations at which such an opinion would be most valuable, the frequency with which organisations would use the service, and which specific matters should fall within or outside the scope of any opinion.
Part B turns to questions of access, participation and fees, asking who should be eligible to request an opinion, what minimum conditions must be satisfied before the UKIPO accepts a request, and whether the service could produce a sufficiently credible opinion if only one party participated. The UKIPO also invites views on how the service should be paid for, including the maximum fee that organisations would be willing to pay, their preferred fee model and how fees should be apportioned between the parties.
Part C addresses evidence and procedure, seeking to understand how the service could operate and what evidence would be necessary for a credible opinion to be produced. A central question is whether sufficiently reliable evidence is available for the UKIPO to assess whether a licensing offer falls within a plausible FRAND range, given that such information is often confidential in nature. The UKIPO also asks what expertise would be necessary to produce a credible opinion, including which functions should sit within the UKIPO and which could appropriately be provided by independent external experts.
Part D covers confidentiality and publication of outcomes, asking respondents how the service should handle commercially sensitive evidence and what publication approach would offer the best balance between usefulness to the parties, protection of confidential information, and wider transparency. A key question is whether organisations would provide commercially sensitive licensing and valuation evidence to the service given the proposed confidentiality protections.
Osborne Clarke comment
If the UKIPO proceeds with a FRAND opinion service, it has the potential to reshape the contours of SEP licensing disputes, potentially facilitating early settlement between parties, and especially smaller parties such as SMEs that lack experience of FRAND negotiations in-house.
The call for evidence represents an important opportunity for industry to shape whether the service is launched at all, what it might look like and how it might operate. The UKIPO appears to be approaching this exercise with openness and has not committed to a particular design. Instead, the call for evidence asks substantive questions about demand and viability.
Nevertheless, it is clear that if an opinion service is introduced, it will be voluntary and non-binding and therefore questions remain about how truly effective it could be. If the opinion service does come to fruition, it will form part of a package of measures that the government intends to work on over the long term, including a court-anchored FRAND determination mechanism, FRAND licensing guidelines, and a potential SEP-specific pre-action protocol. No doubt this is the first in a number of calls for evidence or consultations that the government will run concerning its proposed package of measures. Given that the government's direction of travel appears to favour voluntary, guidance-led solutions over more interventionist measures, it remains to be seen how much of an impact any measures will have on the UK's SEP licensing ecosystem.
