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

James Hill, general counsel at Norwich City FC, reveals how he balances fan engagement with brand enforcement, and when he calls on IP firms for advice
In the second of a two-part article, Gabrielle Faure-André and Stéphanie Garçon at Santarelli unpick EPO, UPC and French case law to assess the importance of clinical development timelines in inventive step analyses
Public figures are turning to trademark protection to combat the threat of AI deepfakes and are monetising their brand through licensing deals, a trend that law firms are keen to capitalise on
News of Avanci Video signing its first video licence and a win for patent innovators in Australia were also among the top talking points
Tom Melsheimer, part of a nine-partner team to join King & Spalding from Winston & Strawn, says the move reflects Texas’s appeal as a venue for high-stakes patent litigation
AI patents and dairy trademarks are at the centre of two judgments to be handed down next week
Jennifer Che explains how taking on the managing director role at her firm has offered a new perspective, and why Hong Kong is seeing a life sciences boom
AG Barr acquires drinks makers Fentimans and Frobishers, in deals worth more than £50m in total
Tarun Khurana at Khurana & Khurana says corporates must take the lead if patent filing activity is to truly translate into innovation
Michael Moore, head of legal at Glean Technologies, discusses how in-house IP teams can use AI while protecting enforceability
Gift this article