PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
August 26, 2025Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice0 citations

Not-so-great expectations of the EU Directive 2024/1799 promoting repair and its nexus with IP protection

View Full Paper
LBLavinia Brancusi

Key Points

  • Access to spare parts under the obligation to repair is hindered by intellectual property protections, limiting repair choices.
  • The directive aims to promote a circular economy by enhancing repairability, but manufacturers have the power to restrict access to necessary tools.
  • Independent service providers may struggle to comply with IP regulations, as the obligation to repair intersects with existing patent laws.
  • The directive's effectiveness is challenged when manufacturers can impede repairs under the guise of protecting their intellectual property.

Abstract

Abstract Increasing the affordability of repair choices and participation of independent service providers is at the core of the recently adopted Directive 2024/1799 on common rules promoting the repair of goods, which is part of the EU legislative agenda fostering the transition to a competitive, climate-neutral and circular economy. This article takes a critical look at the scope of the Directive 2024/1799 and specifically into the ‘obligation to repair’ and its relationship with the protection of intellectual property (IP). The obligation to repair binds primarily manufacturers of certain type of products, namely those under ‘repairability requirements’ that are laid down by a distinct body of regulatory measures. Its goal is to facilitate access to spare parts, repair tools and manuals so that a wider choice of repair options is available to consumers. The article analyses the mandatory nature of the obligation to repair and its practical consequences. The main shortcoming identified is derived from the legal possibility conferred on manufacturers to impede repair by various means if justified by the protection of IP. The article focuses on the issues of ‘spare parts’ and ‘repair’ to demonstrate the difficulty of meeting the IP-compliance requirement if a party that uses a spare part within the ambit of the ‘obligation of repair’ under Directive 2024/1799 were to relate to the design repair clause. This example supports the argument that the most likely effect of the Directive 2024/1799 is that repairing products set under the repairability requirements will be possible on the market yet will remain under the terms and control of the manufacturers.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Lavinia Brancusi (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68af620aad7bf08b1eae312bhttps://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpaf049
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1The Right-to-Repair Directive: A Quick Fix for the Linear Economy?2026
  2. 2The European Directive on Common Rules Promoting the Repair of Goods. A Critical Assessment of its Drafting Process2024 · 5 citations
  3. 3The Battle for Repairability: Navigating Intellectual Property Rights2024
  4. 4‘Freedom to Repair’ under Trade Mark and Patent Law – A More Ecological Approach to Industrial Property Rights?2025
  5. 5Empowering Sustainable Consumption by Giving Back to Consumers the ‘Right to Repair’2020 · 141 citations