Fake Patent and Licensing Scam Recovery

Types of Fake Patent and Licensing Scams

Fake Patent Agent Fee Fraud

A fraudster presents as a licensed European patent attorney or EPO-registered representative offering to file, prosecute, and maintain patent applications for Asian inventors and businesses. Application fees, prosecution fees, national phase entry fees, and maintenance annuities are collected. No genuine applications are ever filed at the EPO or national patent offices. The inventor believes their technology is protected across Europe. The fraud is identified when the inventor attempts to enforce their patent, requests a copy of the granted patent, or conducts an independent status search.

Non-Existent Patent Portfolio Licensing

A fraudster claims to own a portfolio of European patents covering technology relevant to the target business and demands licensing fees for continued use of that technology. The patents either do not exist, have expired, have been declared invalid, or do not cover the target business’s actual technology or products. The fraudster relies on the victim’s reluctance to incur the cost of patent validity and infringement analysis, presenting settlement and licence agreements as more cost-effective than legal challenge.

Fraudulent Assignment and Ownership Claims

A fraudster claims to have acquired rights to a genuine patent through a fraudulent assignment using forged documents, fabricated employment agreements, or misrepresented contractual provisions and then licenses or enforces the patent commercially. The genuine inventor or patent owner discovers the fraudulent assignment when contacted by licensees or when attempting to commercialise their technology. This variant combines patent fraud with document forgery and corporate fraud.

Patent Troll Misrepresentation

A patent assertion entity commonly referred to as a patent troll holds patents of questionable validity and asserts them aggressively against multiple targets to extract licensing fees that are lower than the cost of defending infringement proceedings. While not all patent assertion is fraudulent, this variant crosses into fraud where the asserting entity knowingly enforces patents it knows to be invalid, unenforceable due to prior art, or not genuinely infringed by the target’s products making deliberate misrepresentations about the patent’s scope and the target’s infringement exposure to induce settlement payments.

Fake Licensing Agent Fraud

A fraudster presents as a licensing agent with authority to grant licences under a genuine patent portfolio belonging to an Asian technology company or inventor. European businesses pay licensing fees believing they are entering legitimate agreements. The genuine rights holder receives no payment and is unaware that unauthorised licences are being granted in their name. Both the genuine rights holder who lost licensing revenue and the European licensees who paid for invalid licences have claims against the fraudulent agent.

EPO Notification Scam

A fraudster sends official-looking correspondence mimicking EPO or national patent office communications to patent holders, demanding payment of renewal fees, opposition response fees, or maintenance charges to prevent their patents from lapsing. The correspondence directs payment to a fraudster-controlled account rather than the genuine patent office. The genuine patent lapses through non-payment of the actual renewal fee while the fraudster has collected the victim’s payment. This variant specifically exploits the genuine obligation patent holders have to pay periodic maintenance fees.

Legal Framework: Recovery Options

Fraudulent Misrepresentation

A fake patent agent who collected fees for services never performed, or a fraudster who issued licensing demands knowing the patent was invalid or not infringed, has committed fraudulent misrepresentation in all EU jurisdictions. Claims entitle the victim to full recovery of all fees paid application fees, prosecution fees, maintenance fees, and licensing settlements plus consequential damages including the cost of genuine patent prosecution to replace lost protection and commercial losses caused by the lapsed or unprotected IP position.

Breach of Contract

Where a written engagement agreement specified the patent services to be provided application filing, prosecution, grant, maintenance and those services were not performed, breach of contract claims are available for all fees paid. Breach claims do not require proof of fraudulent intent and carry longer limitation periods in several jurisdictions.

Unjust Enrichment

Where a fraudulent patent agent received fees without performing the contracted services, or where a fraudulent licensing operator received licence payments for rights they did not hold, unjust enrichment claims are available for all amounts received independently of the contractual position.

EPO Administrative Remedies

Where a patent was obtained through fraudulent inventorship claims or misrepresentation, EPO opposition and central revocation proceedings provide administrative remedies to cancel the patent without requiring national court litigation in each designated state. Where a genuine inventor’s patent lapsed due to a fraudulent agent’s failure to pay maintenance fees while collecting those fees from the inventor, restoration of lapsed patents under EPO Rule 136 may be available where the lapse was due to circumstances outside the inventor’s control.

Declaration of Non-Infringement

Where a business has received fraudulent or exaggerated licensing demands, a declaration of non-infringement obtainable in national patent courts or through the UPC establishes that the business’s products or processes do not infringe the asserted patent. A successful declaration of non-infringement removes the basis for the licensing demand entirely and may support a subsequent malicious prosecution or abuse of process claim against the asserting party.

Professional Negligence Claims Against Patent Attorneys

Where a licensed patent attorney failed to file applications within required timeframes, failed to pay maintenance fees that caused patents to lapse, provided incorrect advice about patent scope or validity, or failed to conduct adequate prior art searches, professional negligence claims are available against the attorney and their professional indemnity insurers. These claims provide a solvent recovery target independent of the fraudulent operator’s asset position.

Criminal Complaints

Fake patent agent fraud collecting fees for services never performed constitutes criminal fraud in all EU member states. Where the fraud involved fabricated official correspondence impersonating EPO or national patent office communications, additional criminal charges for document forgery and impersonation of a public authority apply. Criminal complaints unlock company registration records, payment processor data, and correspondence records that are unavailable through civil proceedings alone.

Immediate Steps After Identifying a Fake Patent or Licensing Scam

Step 1 – Verify the Patent Status Independently

For fake agent fraud conduct an independent search of the EPO’s Espacenet database and the relevant national patent registries to verify the actual status of any patent applications or grants the agent represented as pending or obtained. Espacenet is publicly accessible and provides the current status of all EPO applications and granted European patents including prosecution history, maintenance status, and owner records.

Step 2 – Verify the Licensing Demand’s Basis

For licensing demand fraud obtain an independent patent validity and infringement analysis from a licensed European patent attorney with no connection to the asserting party. A validity analysis assesses whether the asserted patent is genuinely in force and not invalidated by prior art. An infringement analysis assesses whether your specific products or processes actually fall within the patent’s claims. Do not pay a licensing demand before these independent analyses are completed.

Step 3 – Verify Agent and Attorney Credentials

Verify the credentials of any patent agent or attorney independently through the EPO’s register of professional representatives and the relevant national patent attorney regulatory body. An unregistered agent has no authority to conduct patent proceedings before the EPO or national offices and the EPO will not recognise communications filed by unregistered representatives.

Step 4 – Preserve All Documentation

Save every communication, invoice, filing receipt, and correspondence associated with the patent services or licensing demand including any official-looking correspondence that may be fraudulent. For EPO notification scam victims, preserve the fraudulent correspondence and any payment records. For licensing demand victims, preserve the demand letters, claim charts, and any settlement correspondence.

Step 5 – File a Criminal Complaint and Regulatory Complaint

File a criminal complaint with the national police or prosecutor in the EU member state where the fraudulent agent or licensing operator is registered. File a regulatory complaint with the relevant national patent attorney regulatory body in Germany, the Patentanwaltskammer; in France, the Compagnie Nationale des Conseils en Propriété Industrielle; in the UK (for EPC purposes), the Intellectual Property Regulation Board. Regulatory complaints trigger professional investigation and may result in licence revocation and compensation proceedings.

Legal Options for Fake Patent and Licensing Scam Victims

Civil Litigation

Civil proceedings against the identified fraudulent operator for fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment are available in all EU jurisdictions. Civil proceedings achieve full recovery of all fees paid and licensing settlements made, compensatory damages for consequential losses including patent prosecution replacement costs, EPO administrative remedy coordination, and disclosure orders compelling patent registries, payment processors, and company records to produce operator identity and transaction data.

EPO Restoration and Administrative Remedies

Where genuine patents lapsed due to fraudulent agent non-payment of maintenance fees, EPO restoration proceedings under Rule 136 EPC may restore lapsed rights where the failure to pay was due to circumstances outside the genuine owner’s control including agent fraud. National patent offices provide equivalent restoration mechanisms for nationally validated patents.

Asset Tracing and the EAPO

Patent scam proceeds particularly from organised fake licensing operations targeting multiple businesses follow traceable paths through EU banking systems. The EAPO under Regulation (EU) No. 655/2014 freezes accounts across all EU member states simultaneously on an ex parte basis securing accumulated proceeds before the fraudulent operator dissipates assets or dissolves the operating entity.

Factors That Determine Recovery Outcomes

Nature of the Scam and Recoverable Quantum

Fake agent fee fraud where fees were paid for services never performed produces the clearest recovery basis: all fees paid are recoverable as unjust enrichment with no offsetting value. Fake licensing settlement recovery requires demonstrating that the asserted patent was invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed supported by an independent validity and infringement analysis. Consequential damages for lapsed patent protection require expert assessment of the commercial value of the protection lost.

EPO and Patent Registry Evidence

Espacenet and national patent registry records provide independent, publicly accessible evidence of the actual patent status establishing whether applications were filed, whether patents were granted, and whether maintenance fees were paid. These records are the primary documentary evidence in fake agent fraud cases and are obtainable without court proceedings.

Availability of Professional Negligence Claims

Where a licensed patent attorney was involved and their negligence contributed to the loss, professional negligence claims against the attorney and their professional indemnity insurers provide the most accessible solvent recovery target. The existence of valid professional indemnity insurance mandatory for registered patent attorneys in all EU member states is the critical factor in assessing the viability of the negligence claim.