What has been agreed on Patent Box reforms?

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

What has been agreed on Patent Box reforms?

So, just five weeks after a UK government minister defended the country’s Patent Box scheme, George Osborne has announced that he has agreed with the German finance minister to make changes to it. But what changes has he agreed?

On October 3, Treasury minister David Gauke told the Securities Industries Conference that he rejected any suggestion that the UK’s Patent Box facilitates profit shifting.

“Let me be clear here: categorically, it does not create an opportunity for businesses to reduce their taxes without increasing their value to the UK economy.”

He went on to defend the use of a transfer pricing approach to the Patent Box, arguing that the so-called nexus approach – favoured by many of those EU governments that have been critical of the UK’s Patent Box scheme – could “infringe the freedom of establishment” and be “overly restrictive”.

The nexus approach would also require “incredibly detailed tracing of expenditure and income”, he said, placing a heavy burden on businesses and tax authorities.

It may not come as much surprise, therefore, to find that Osborne yesterday revealed in a joint statement with his German counterpart, finance minister Wolfgang Schauble, that they are proposing new rules based on a “nexus” approach.

(You can read more about the statement and reaction to it in an article by our sister magazine International Tax Review).

But what do the changes mean? I spoke to one patent attorney this morning who concluded that the wording of the statement – confusing and avoiding the term “patent box” completely – suggested that the UK Treasury had been caught off-guard. The Patent Box – at least as it is now formulated – is likely to be a casualty of wider EU machinations and behind-the-scenes negotiations between the UK and Germany over reform of the EU Treaty.

The inconclusive statement raises as many questions as it answers: it talks about closing the scheme to new entrants in 2016, and abolishing schemes by 2021, yet it doesn’t make clear whether the existing scheme will be changed to a nexus, rather than transfer pricing, approach within that timeframe.

We will try to get more information in the coming days about how the reforms – which will require legislative changes – will affect IP owners and their advisers. If you have insights into how they will work in practice do let us know.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
Gift this article