Changes to UK threats provisions recommended

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Changes to UK threats provisions recommended

The Law Commission has recommended reforms to the law on groundless threats of infringement proceedings in the UK, following a period of consultation

The changes affect threats of litigation for patents, trade marks and design rights but not copyright or other unregistered rights. In summary the report recommends:

  • Protection against groundless threats should be retained, but should be reformed

  • A threats action may not be brought for all threats made to a “primary actor” (as is already the case for patents)

  • It should be possible to communicate with “secondary actors” where there is a legitimate commercial purpose behind the communication and there are reasonable grounds for believing that the information provided is true.

  • For patents, it should no longer be possible to avoid liability for making threats by showing that the threatener did not know, or had no reason to suspect, that the patent was invalid.

  • A lawyer, patent or trade mark attorney should not be jointly liable for making threats when acting in their professional capacity and on client instructions.

The Commission said the recommendations “will make the law clearer, easier to follow and apply, and will ensure that the protection against groundless threats is more consistent between patents, trade marks and design rights”.

It acknowledged that there are benefits in replacing the threats provisions by a new cause of action based on unfair competition law, but said that consultees felt this was too big a change at this stage.

The Commission also said the recommendations do not address “the more fundamental issue of the uneasy relationship between UK national law and the enforcement of European and Community IP rights”.

The report does not include a draft bill, and there is no published timetable for implementing the changes.

An executive summary and the full report are available online.

Managing IP will have further analysis later this week.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Yossi Sivan explains how Israeli judgment is a pro-brand owner departure from the norm and why it sends a strong message that corporate structures are not always a shield
Halim Shehadeh, group CEO of IP firm CWB, says that in the rush to discuss what AI can do, IP firms are overlooking the more important question of whether they are ready
Caitlin Heard, who formally joined the firm from CMS last month, says she is excited by the ‘energy’ of the London office
Ranjna Mehta-Dutt, who moved to Chadha & Chadha after 25 years at Remfry & Sagar, says the firm plans to expand its life sciences practice through targeted recruitment and dedicated teams for bigger clients
The initial contempt of court claim targeted Stobbs and the firm’s client for allegedly interfering with the administration of justice
Acquisition of platform developed by Boehmert & Boehmert lawyer set to create a combined platform for patent drafting and prosecution in Europe
Partner Rob Jacob unveils plans to offer a beginning-to-end trademark service, how to make prosecution profitable, and why IP ‘buy-in’ from the CEO stands the firm in good stead
Sponsored by CAS
CAS provides practical pointers on how intellectual property and R&D teams can work in tandem to unlock tangible benefits and avoid wasted spend
Sponsored by That.Legal
Gillian Tan of That.Legal discusses a recent decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore and what it reveals about the evidential burden in bad-faith trademark claims
Attorneys at Di Blasi, Parente & Associados share how the protection of trade secrets strengthens innovation by bringing together legal practice, regulatory developments, and established international references
Gift this article