The panel “Competition Perspectives: LNGs, Standardisation and Patent Licensing” examined the European Commission’s new guidance on Licensing Negotiation Groups, or LNGs, in the 2026 Technology Transfer Guidelines.

Moderated by Le Chen, Senior Director, IP Policy & Dispute Resolution at Xiaomi Europe, the session brought together perspectives from DG Competition, the Bundeskartellamt, BSH Hausgeräte, the Fair Standards Alliance and Nokia.

The Commission’s message was that LNGs are not intended to replace bilateral licensing, patent pools or existing FRAND mechanisms. Rather, they are one possible tool for dealing with increasingly complex technology licensing environments. As more products rely on standardised technologies, particularly in sectors such as automotive, IoT and connected devices, licensing can become fragmented, costly and difficult to manage.

The 2026 Technology Transfer Guidelines recognise that groups of implementers may, in some circumstances, jointly negotiate licences for technology rights. The potential efficiencies are clear: reduced transaction costs, better access to technical and licensing information, more predictable negotiations and improved ability to assess aggregate exposure.

At the same time, the Guidelines do not give LNGs a free pass. They identify competition-law risks and set out the conditions under which such cooperation may be assessed. These include safeguards around information exchange, governance, openness, transparency and the risk that cooperation between implementers could spill over into coordination on downstream markets.

The discussion also acknowledged reservations outside Europe. The U.S. Trade Representative’s 2026 Special 301 Report added the European Union to its Watch List and raised concerns about foreign IP protection and enforcement affecting U.S. innovators. In the SEP context, U.S. commentary has been critical of licensing negotiation groups, warning that collective negotiation by implementers may risk depressing royalty rates or weakening SEP enforcement incentives.

For implementers, LNGs may offer a more structured way to engage with fragmented SEP licensing demands. For licensors, the challenge may be to ensure that collective negotiation does not weaken incentives to invest in R&D or participate in open standards.

The broader question is whether LNGs will remain a narrow tool for specific licensing environments or become part of a wider European move toward more structured patent licensing. The answer remains open. What is clear is that the Commission is trying to provide guidance rather than impose a single model.

The panel showed that LNGs are best understood as part of a wider effort to make technology licensing more workable in complex innovation ecosystems. Their success will depend on whether they can deliver efficiency, transparency and fairness without crossing the line into unlawful coordination.

Disclaimer: This article is based on the author’s recollection of the panel discussion. It reflects comments made by speakers in their personal capacity and should not be read as a verbatim or complete factual summary of the debate, nor as representing the views of the organiser.