The European innovation act

Legislative proposal

2026/0264(COD) – Proposal for a regulation establishing a framework of measures for strengthening the Union innovation ecosystem and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (European Innovation Act) – COM(2026) 567, 9 September 2026

Issue

The European Union (EU) faces a growing innovation gap with its global competitors. Mario Draghi's 2024 report identifies a scale‑up gap as one of the key issues holding back innovation in the EU economy. The scaling up of innovative firms is constrained by regulatory burdens, lack of access to finance and insufficient support infrastructure. In another report from the same year, Enrico Letta identifies incomplete EU integration as one of the leading causes of the innovation gap. In this context, he advocates for the elimination of barriers to the free movement of researchers, knowledge and technology across the Union, what the report calls the 'fifth freedom' of the single market. A third report from that year, produced by an expert group chaired by Manuel Heitor to support the interim evaluation of Horizon Europe, stresses that only around one third of EU patents are commercialised, further highlighting the EU's difficulty in translating ideas into marketable products.

Translating early‑stage research into innovation is hindered by two main barriers. The first is the lack of a clear EU legal framework for research and development (R&D) procurement, which limits its use and reduces the incentives for innovative firms to take part in it. The second is insufficient clarity and comparability in the valuation and monetisation of intellectual property (IP), which limits access to finance for innovative firms without significant tangible assets.

Main points of the proposal

The proposal would establish three main schemes: a new legal framework for R&D public procurement; an EU preference within that framework; and a set of measures to improve the harnessing of intellectual property assets for economic and financial endeavours.

Chapter 2 on the procurement of R&D services would lay down rules and procedures for a new R&D contract (R&D procurement).

Under Article 2 on the scope of the proposal, such R&D procurement would include the procurement of R&D services by public buyers with a value above €207 000, or above €1 million when the public buyer is an innovation agency, excluding value added tax in both cases. The proposal complements Directives 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU on public procurement (currently under review), which already contain provisions on R&D services. The proposal excludes the procurement of R&D services covered by the exemptions in the Defence Procurement Directive (proposed Recital 3).

The proposed R&D contract includes provisions in line with the main rules of public procurement, as well as specific provisions (IP ownership, financing, value engineering and exclusion) that provide added value.

The proposed R&D procurement scheme follows the main commonalities of the principles and rules applying to public procurement. In general, the proposed Article 4 on general principles provides for the procurement to comply with the principles of transparency and non‑discrimination among economic operators. Transparency would be ensured, in particular, by the required market consultation prior to the launch of the procurement (Article 9), by the list of specifications to be included in the procurement documents (Article 10), and by the framework applicable to the publication of the call for tender (Article 23).

Non‑discrimination would be ensured by the absence of a prescribed legal form for interested economic operators (Article 5), the authorisation of subcontracting (Article 8), a limited set of mandatory exclusion grounds (Article 13), a set of challengeable optional exclusion grounds (Article 14), and the need to design proportionate selection criteria that should also not, in principle, require prior experience of other contracts as a condition for participation in such a procurement (Article 15). The general rules of public procurement would also be complied with, including ensuring that the evaluation of tenders would be based on the best price‑quality ratio (Article 17).

The proposed regulation also sets out specificities for R&D procurement. The first proposed specificity would require public buyers to give participating economic operators free, unrestricted and direct electronic access to any electronic communication and procurement documents (Article 4). As for the substantive provisions, the proposal would require public buyers to define their procurement needs by presenting a problem to be solved, without restricting the possible approaches to solving it. This would also be ensured by formulating functional or performance requirements (Article 10). In addition, to give public buyers more opportunities to meet their procurement needs, the proposal would allow multiple sourcing of solutions through the same tender (Article 22), and would also allow public buyers to procure through successive steps (Article 24).

To ensure that innovation carries weight in the tender evaluation, the proposal would provide a set of innovation‑related award criteria to be applied as part of the quality award criteria. Such criteria would include, among others, the harnessing of technologies or research results from EU and Member States' publicly funded R&D programmes. The weight of such innovation criteria would account for at least 15 % of the total weight of all award criteria (Article 17).

A very significant element of the proposal relates to the intellectual property rights arising from results generated in the performance of an R&D procurement contract. The proposal would, in particular, give the contractors the right to retain ownership of such intellectual property rights, subject to certain obligations and exceptions (Article 19).

The proposal also aims to support the development of joint R&D procurement by facilitating the teaming of public buyers, including across borders (Article 31).

Another significant point of the proposal relates to the promotion of EU strategic autonomy. Eligibility to submit an offer under the procurement scheme would be limited to economic operators that have their origin in Member States or in countries that have concluded an international agreement with the EU, also covering R&D procurement. The Commission would also be authorised to adopt delegated acts to exclude such a third country if at least one of three criteria were met (the country had failed to comply with the agreement in question, the exclusion would be justified to avoid dependencies, or the exclusion would be justified by another exception under the agreement) (Article 11(1)‑(2)).

The proposal also includes a provision to facilitate the procurement of services that could not be procured in Europe. Public buyers could then open access to R&D procurement, but only to economic operators that have their origin in countries that have concluded an international agreement with the EU covering public procurement commitments but not R&D procurement. In such a case, the public buyer would have to demonstrate through market research that such a R&D service could not be provided by eligible economic operators (Article 11(4)).

Chapter 3 on the commercialisation of research and innovation results aims to encourage the commercialisation of IP assets and the development of IP‑backed financial instruments. It would require the establishment of a Union Competence Centre to support and promote IP‑backed finance and the commercialisation of IP (Article 32(1)). It would be aimed at researchers, innovative enterprises and other public or private entities established in a Member State that have an interest in the commercialisation of IP, as well as the entities that support them (Article 32(2)).

The Competence Centre would form part of the EUIPO and would not have a separate legal personality, financial autonomy, or decision‑making powers (Article 32(5)). The EUIPO would be required to report yearly, in a dedicated section of its multiannual strategic programme and annual work programme, on activities, results against performance indicators, resources used and revenue from charges (Article 36). Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 would be amended to add the tasks entrusted to the EUIPO under this proposal (Article 37).

The Competence Centre would have the following tasks (Article 32 (3)):

The processes for valuation, the match‑making platform, and data access would be digitalised and, where possible, made compatible with European Business Wallets.

Persons and entities participating in the voluntary framework, as well as relevant public and private entities in the areas of finance and insurance, would be able to request the valuation of IP by an independent certified IP valuator, with the costs being borne by the person or entity that commissions the valuation, unless agreed otherwise (Article 34). The EUIPO would have a general power to charge for specific services under Article 32. However, access to the matchmaking platform, the valuation framework, the EU‑level helpdesk, and the support services on the implementation of IP‑backed financial instruments provided to public stakeholders would have to remain free of charge (Article 32(7)).

To train and certify valuators, the EUIPO would establish and administer a voluntary certification scheme (Article 35). The certification would only attest competence in applying the EU valuation framework, without being required for IP valuation. The training and assessment of IP valuators would be organised by the EUIPO, with the detailed conditions for the implementation of the certification scheme determined by Commission implementing acts.

Chapter 4 on the final provisions includes several key proposed provisions to ensure the effectiveness of the schemes.

Article 39 on the exercise of delegation would provide five grounds on which the Commission could adopt delegated acts. These concern the conditions for excluding countries from access to public R&D procurement (Article 11(2)), the setting of exceptions to the retention of ownership of IP by contractors (Article 19(10)), the requirement to apply multiple sourcing (Article 22(5)), the organisation of R&D procedures in multiple successive phases (Article 24(12)), and the establishment of additional rules to ensure security and public safety in R&D procurement (Article 28).

Article 40 on evaluation would require the Commission to carry out an evaluation of the regulation in the four years after it enters into force and thereafter every five years. A report on the evaluation would be submitted to the European Parliament, the Council, and the European Economic and Social Committee.

Article 41 on the entry into force specifies that the regulation would enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Parliament's prior position

In its December 2023 resolution on increasing innovation, industrial, and technological competitiveness, Parliament stresses the need to raise awareness of the importance of intellectual property for innovative companies, including start‑ups and scale‑ups. It further calls for the participation of start‑ups and scale‑ups in the provision of innovative solutions to public sector challenges.

In its September 2025 resolution on public procurement, Parliament acknowledges that the rules on public procurement of innovative solutions are underused, owing to their complexity and bureaucratic hurdles. However, Parliament notes the positive role of public procurement in promoting the dissemination of innovative solutions, including through the establishment of lead markets. It also recognises the role of introducing a preference for European goods and services in targeted strategic sectors.

In its November 2025 resolution on access to finance for SMEs and scale‑ups, Parliament calls for the development of simplified guidance tools and one‑stop shops for SMEs and scale‑ups to help them navigate different EU legal systems on intellectual property rights (among other aspects). It further calls on the Commission to improve SME access‑to‑finance monitoring tools.

In a resolution of 20 January 2026 on the 28th regime, Parliament returned to the positive role of public procurement in spurring EU innovation and competitiveness by stressing that SMEs, start‑ups and scale‑ups would also need public procurement opportunities, along with other framework conditions, to thrive within the internal market.

Prior positions of other EU institutions

The European Economic and Social Committee is preparing an opinion on the proposal that is expected to be put to a vote in plenary in December 2026. Neil Walker (GRX) has been appointed as rapporteur. In a previous opinion adopted in April 2026 on the EU start‑up and scale‑up strategy, the Committee expressed its hope that the proposal for the European innovation act would provide cross‑cutting simplifications for start‑ups across the single market.

In 2026, the European Court of Auditors delivered relevant messages in its special opinion on the proposed Horizon Europe programme (2028‑2034), and in its special opinion on the proposed European Competitiveness Fund (2028‑2034).

Preparation of the proposal

The Commission prepared an impact assessment that was published alongside the proposed regulation. The proposal has been designed to address one general objective: improving the functioning of the single market for innovation by speeding up the commercialisation of innovative solutions across the EU. Three measures have been identified, and several options have been developed for each of these measures:

Points of view

Following the publication of the proposal, academic and business stakeholders have conveyed their views on its objectives and provisions. The Conference of European Schools for Advanced Engineering Education and Research (CESAER) issued an opinion considering the proposal a 'welcome starting point' for achieving the fifth freedom outlined in the Letta report. This proposal should be complemented by other steps at both EU and national levels, particularly to continue improving the coordination of research and innovation policies and instruments across the single market, and to pursue the objective of simplification.

The Quantum Business Network (QBN), gathering businesses and research organisations active in quantum technologies, published a briefing on the proposal. It assesses the proposal as holding 'significant potential' for the future operations and commercial development of the sector. This would facilitate the growth of businesses active in the sector across Europe and possibly mitigate their decision to relocate abroad.

The European University Association (EUA), while acknowledging the importance of innovation procurement for universities, highlights that the proposed European innovation act fails to leverage the full spectrum of the innovation ecosystem. In particular, it does not support flexible career frameworks for innovators – for example, by failing to address the two‑way mobility of students and staff between companies and universities. Furthermore, the EUA underscores that the proposed act lacks a place‑based approach to innovation that considers the connections between universities and the surrounding innovative ecosystem of scale‑ups and start‑ups. Nonetheless, it welcomes the establishment of a competence centre for intellectual property‑backed finance, a union‑wide IP marketplace and a valuation framework.

According to reporting by Science Business, the European Startup Network holds a positive view of the proposal, believing public procurement can help start‑ups obtain funding. Furthermore, standardisation in IP valuation could enable early‑stage breakthrough innovations to find more sources of funding by allowing banks and more traditional financial institutions to get involved in an area typically dominated by venture capital. The same report indicates that the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations welcomed the proposal's shift in public innovation procurement from cost‑based criteria to prioritising quality, resilience, and innovation. Additionally, EuropaBio noted that the proposal incorporates several IP measures the sector had been advocating for. However, EuropaBio warned that the success of these measures will depend on their effective implementation and uptake by financial institutions, as the proposal does not yet establish a complete IP‑backed finance system.