Séjourné canvasses governments on patents after dropped proposal

Euronews

23-05-2025

EU Industry Commissioner Stéphane Séjourné has asked member states to agree among themselves on whether to support the Commission's intention to ditch a proposal on standard essential patents (SEP).
The French commissioner for the internal market has said he wants to hear back from governments in the next three weeks.
Member states are divided about the way forward after the Commission said in February it intended to withdraw a plan on SEPs which it presented in 2023, arguing that it couldn't see an agreement being reached.
SEPs are patents that protect the technology deemed essential in a technical standard or specification and are used in the automotive, smart energy, and payment industry. Which means that if a company wants to make a product that complies with technical standards (such as 5G or wifi), it needs to use the technology covered by SEPs. Disputes over the value of SEPs licenses are proliferating as their use increases.
The Commission proposal intended to make the process of licensing SEPs more transparent, which was welcomed by patent lobby organisations who called for modernisation of the rules to make the bloc more competitive.
A group of eight countries – Czechia, France, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Latvia, Portugal, Slovakia and Spain – called for other EU member states to support continued work on the file during a meeting of industry ministers in Brussels on Thursday, arguing that the rules are crucial for industry. The Spanish representative said that SEPs will be beneficial for Europe's automotive industry. Italy added that: 'We need to ensure the value chains are resilient in the current geopolitical situation.'
Ireland, Finland and Sweden, by contrast, backed the Commission's assessment that since no deal is within reach it should be dropped. The Swedish representative said that the proposal had created 'major divisions in the business community', adding that 'any initiative in this field needs to encourage innovation and not create undue regulatory burden.'
Finland added that the decision to withdraw is in line with the Commission's simplification plan. 'We think there are fundamental problems in the proposal, they cannot be amended with this draft.'
Séjourné told lawmakers of the European Parliament's Legal Affairs (JURI) in April that the Commission scrapped the SEP proposal in a bid to reach a broader agreement on the topic.
Some argue however, that the incoming US administration and the EU Commission's current strategy for deregulation killed the proposal.
While the majority of the member states do not see the need to continue with the topic, lawmakers want it kept on the table.
The proposed rules on SEPs were agreed by the Parliament in February 2024 - with 454 votes for, 83 against and 78 abstentions - before the Commission announced its intention to withdraw the file.
German MEP Bernd Lange (EPP), who chairs the heads of the Parliamentary committees, is expected to discuss the issue with Parliament President Roberta Metsola in June.
A letter signed by Lange and seen by Euronews, said that the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) – which is leading on the file – 'objects, by a large majority, to the proposed withdrawal.'
'The proposal remains highly relevant due to its impact on competitiveness, transparency, and innovation, particularly for SMEs,' the letter said.
The Commission has until August to decide whether to go ahead with its intention to withdraw the plan.
A US federal judge decided to let a wrongful death lawsuit continue against artificial intelligence (AI) company Character.AI after the suicide of a teenage boy.
The suit was filed by a mother from Florida who alleges that her 14-year-old son Sewell Setzer III fell victim to one of the company's chatbots that pulled him into what she described as an emotionally and sexually abusive relationship that led to his suicide.
The lawsuit alleges that in the final months of his life, Setzer became increasingly isolated from reality as he engaged in sexualised conversations with the bot, which was patterned after a fictional character from the television show 'Game of Thrones'.
In his final moments, the bot told Setzer it loved him and urged the teen to "come home to me as soon as possible," according to screenshots of the exchanges.
Moments after receiving the message, Setzer shot himself, according to legal filings.
Meetali Jain of the Tech Justice Law Project, one of the attorneys for Garcia, said the judge's order sends a message that Silicon Valley "needs to stop and think and impose guardrails before it launches products to market".
The company tried to argue that it was protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which protects fundamental freedoms for Americans, like freedom of speech.
Attorneys for the developers want the case dismissed because they say chatbots deserve these First Amendment protections, and ruling otherwise could have a "chilling effect" on the AI industry.
In her order Wednesday, US Senior District Judge Anne Conway rejected some of the defendants' free speech claims, saying she's "not prepared" to hold that the chatbots' output constitutes speech "at this stage".
In a statement, a spokesperson for Character.AI pointed to a number of safety features the company has implemented, including guardrails for children and suicide prevention resources that were announced the day the lawsuit was filed.
"We care deeply about the safety of our users and our goal is to provide a space that is engaging and safe," the statement said.
The suit against Character Technologies, the company behind Character.AI, also names individual developers and Google as defendants.
Google spokesperson José Castañeda told the Associated Press that the company "strongly disagree[s]" with Judge Conway's decision.
"Google and Character AI are entirely separate, and Google did not create, design, or manage Character AI's app or any component part of it," the statement read.
The case has drawn the attention of legal experts and AI watchers in the U.S. and beyond, as the technology rapidly reshapes workplaces, marketplaces and relationships despite what experts warn are potentially existential risks.
"The order certainly sets it up as a potential test case for some broader issues involving AI," said "It's a warning to parents that social media and generative AI devices are not always harmless," Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky, a law professor at the University of Florida with a focus on the First Amendment and AI.
No matter how the lawsuit plays out, Lidsky says the case is a warning of "the dangers of entrusting our emotional and mental health to AI companies".
"It's a warning to parents that social media and generative AI devices are not always harmless," she said.