{"id":467459,"date":"2025-10-02T03:42:22","date_gmt":"2025-10-02T03:42:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/467459\/"},"modified":"2025-10-02T03:42:22","modified_gmt":"2025-10-02T03:42:22","slug":"post-brexit-shake-up-regulator-seeks-to-replace-eu-tech-licensing-exemption","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/467459\/","title":{"rendered":"Post-Brexit Shake-Up: Regulator Seeks to Replace EU Tech Licensing Exemption"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>KEY POINTS<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>CMA advises scrapping EU-era TTBER as it expires in April 2026<\/li>\n<li>Proposal introduces 12-year UK-specific tech licensing exemption<\/li>\n<li>Outdated &#8216;utility models&#8217; removed; database rights added<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Britain&#8217;s competition regulator has recommended scrapping the EU-era Assimilated Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation (TTBER) when it expires on 30 April 2026, replacing it with a new 12-year UK Technology Transfer Block Exemption Order (TTBEO).<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.reuters.com\/sustainability\/boards-policy-regulation\/uk-watchdog-recommends-new-post-brexit-framework-tech-licensing-rules-2025-09-30\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener nofollow\">Reuters<\/a> reported that the move reflects a post-Brexit push to establish a domestic framework tailored to UK innovation and competition priorities.<\/p>\n<p>Why Change TTBER?<\/p>\n<p>After <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ibtimes.co.uk\/topics\/brexit\" data-sys=\"1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Brexit<\/a>, the UK carried over many EU exemptions, including TTBER, which allows companies to license or share technology such as patents, software, and know-how under competition law if certain conditions are met.<\/p>\n<p>But the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) argued in its final recommendation document that TTBER, in its current form, is ill-suited to UK markets.<\/p>\n<p>According to the CMA, &#8216;technology transfer agreements can often be pro-competitive and can benefit innovation, investment and growth &#8230; but certain clauses within such agreements can also have negative effects on competition.&#8217;<\/p>\n<p>Key Reforms Under the Proposed TTBEO<\/p>\n<p>The CMA&#8217;s plan keeps much of TTBER&#8217;s structure but introduces UK-specific reforms.<a href=\"https:\/\/assets.publishing.service.gov.uk\/media\/68dbaf5edadf7616351e4c1b\/final-recommendation.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener nofollow\"> According to the regulator&#8217;s report<\/a>, the new framework would:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Remove references to &#8216;utility models&#8217;, an intellectual property concept not recognised in the UK.<\/li>\n<li>Add database rights and database copyrights, reflecting the growing importance of data licensing.<\/li>\n<li>Provide two ways to qualify: either by meeting existing market share thresholds, or by showing that at least three substitutable technologies exist independently, ensuring agreements don&#8217;t entrench dominance.<\/li>\n<li>Introduce a transitional period, allowing existing agreements covered by TTBER to retain exemption for one year after its expiry.<\/li>\n<li>Be accompanied by new CMA guidance, giving businesses clarity on interpreting the order.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.reuters.com\/sustainability\/boards-policy-regulation\/uk-watchdog-recommends-new-post-brexit-framework-tech-licensing-rules-2025-09-30\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener nofollow\">Reuters<\/a> noted that these adjustments aim to provide stability and flexibility while aligning rules more closely with British economic realities.<\/p>\n<p>Industry Reactions<\/p>\n<p>Tech licensing firms including Nokia, Sisvel International, and Avanci submitted responses during consultation, according to Reuters. Industry stakeholders warned of legal uncertainty if TTBER expired without replacement.<\/p>\n<p>In its submission, InterDigital cautioned that not replacing TTBER would &#8216;risk creating legal uncertainty and increasing compliance costs for technology transfer licensing in the UK.&#8217;<\/p>\n<p>The company stressed that a stable exemption regime supports investment and innovation, particularly for cross-border licensing.<\/p>\n<p>Legal experts described the CMA&#8217;s proposal as pragmatic: it mirrors EU principles but allows for UK divergence where necessary. However, some observers warned in the CMA consultation responses that divergence could complicate cross-jurisdictional licensing deals.<\/p>\n<p>Why It Matters<\/p>\n<p>According to the CMA report, failing to renew or replace TTBER could expose agreements to challenge under Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998, leaving firms without legal certainty. A clear block exemption, by contrast, gives companies confidence to negotiate technology transfer deals without breaching competition law.<\/p>\n<p>The government&#8217;s adoption of a UK-specific order would also mark a symbolic regulatory shift. Reuters noted that the proposal is part of a wider post-Brexit agenda to &#8220;take back control&#8221; of competition law and reduce dependence on EU legacy rules.<\/p>\n<p>Challenges Ahead<\/p>\n<p>Despite its pragmatic approach, the CMA admitted that practical challenges remain. Determining whether three substitutable technologies exist in fast-moving sectors could be complex, and consistent interpretation across regulators and courts will be vital.<\/p>\n<p>Guidance documents, the CMA confirmed, will accompany the order to help businesses navigate potential disputes.<\/p>\n<p>The consultation period has now ended, and the CMA&#8217;s recommendation is with the Secretary of State for final consideration.<\/p>\n<p>If approved, the new UK-specific block exemption could come into force in April 2026, replacing TTBER and providing what the CMA describes as a &#8216;future-proof framework&#8217; for technology licensing in Britain.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"KEY POINTS CMA advises scrapping EU-era TTBER as it expires in April 2026 Proposal introduces 12-year UK-specific tech&hellip;\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":467460,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5226],"tags":[802,155931,748,155932,2000,299,5187,1699,4884,155933,155930,155929,16,155928,15],"class_list":{"0":"post-467459","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-brexit","8":"tag-brexit","9":"tag-brexit-competition-rules","10":"tag-britain","11":"tag-database-rights","12":"tag-eu","13":"tag-europe","14":"tag-european","15":"tag-european-union","16":"tag-great-britain","17":"tag-innovation-policy","18":"tag-tech-licensing","19":"tag-ttber","20":"tag-uk","21":"tag-uk-cma","22":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/115302507808678505","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/467459","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=467459"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/467459\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/467460"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=467459"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=467459"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=467459"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}