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

Apple’s lawsuit against OpenAI, which features Tier 1-ranked disputes firms on both sides, reflects how trade secrets litigation is becoming a prominent competition feature
Drew & Napier’s leadership appointments show one way full-service firms can back up claims about the strategic importance of IP
Strike-out application will hear claims that the copyright aspect of an IP infringement claim brought by a gambling and sports betting group should be dropped
Amongst a sea of mergers, Lathrop GPM and HG Law have set out plans to combine, positioning themselves to compete with both IP boutiques and full-service firms
Patrícia Paias explains why she loves the science and business behind an idea and why potential rights owners must avoid the ‘file and forget’ philosophy
Lawyers eagerly await news of what IP specialist Sir Colin Birss will bring to one of the England and Wales judiciary’s most important roles
María Aurora García of Berken IP explains how intellectual property rights holders can use customs monitoring and online enforcement tools to identify parallel imports and support compliance with consumer protection rules
The Jakarta-based firm says personal networks and a distinctive strategy can help it guide foreign clients through what can be a tricky IP landscape
Munich litigation boutique formed by former Taylor Wessing partners continues expansion as it seeks to cement its position in the UPC market
Yvonne Tang and Siau Wen Lim, the second and third IP specialists to sit on the firm’s management committee, say IP is ‘uniquely positioned’ to support cross-practice work
Gift this article