Right to Repair versus Patents – Where Is the Boundary?
In a series of blog posts, Marco Coolen offers a glimpse into his work as a Dutch and European patent attorney at AOMB.
Published on March 8, 2026
Marco, a patent attorney at AOMB since 2013, shares his expertise on IO+ about patents—how they work, why they matter, and when they lose their value.
Right to repair is no longer an activist idea. It has become policy. European regulations are increasingly obliging manufacturers to make products more repairable and to keep spare parts available for longer. That creates friction with a tool entrepreneurs have used for decades: the patent.
A patent gives you the right to exclude others. Right to repair, on the other hand, says that users should be able to fix their own products—or have them repaired by someone else.
That inevitably leads to tension. Especially with inventions that make maintenance more complex rather than simpler. I saw that tension reflected in responses to my earlier story about the BMW screw head. “Clever idea, but will this still be allowed in the future?” people asked. And: “Is this innovation, or mainly lock-in?”
Fair questions.
Marco Coolen, photo © Bart van Overbeeke
Two different worlds
What is important to understand is that Brussels and the European Patent Office operate in two entirely different worlds.
The European Patent Office looks purely at technical criteria:
- Is it new?
- Is it inventive?
- Is it industrially applicable?
If your invention meets those criteria, you can obtain a patent. Full stop.
The fact that the European Parliament is simultaneously pushing for greater repairability and sustainability does not change the validity of that patent. A granted European patent simply remains valid for twenty years.
What may change, however, is how you can use that patent.
Legal rights versus societal reality
Legally, you may be able to block something—but the real question is whether you should want to.
In Europe, the balance is increasingly shifting toward consumer rights and sustainability. That means a patent that makes repair more difficult could come under greater scrutiny—legally, politically, or reputationally.
In other regions, that balance may be different. The same invention might be applied there without much discussion.
As a result, patent strategy is becoming less of a purely legal question and more of a commercial and geopolitical consideration.
The real question is changing
Ten years ago, entrepreneurs mainly asked: “Can we patent this?”
Today, the more relevant question is: “Where can we commercialize this?”
Perhaps such an invention is mainly deployed outside Europe. Perhaps you choose an adapted version within the EU. Or perhaps you use the patent defensively—for instance to strengthen your negotiating position rather than to actively block repairs.
Strategy over technology
Right to repair forces entrepreneurs to think more carefully about their business models. Do you want to earn money from sales? From maintenance? From spare parts? From licensing?
A patent is a tool. But how you use it is increasingly determined by the playing field around it.
And that playing field is shifting.
That is not a reason to protect less. It is a reason to protect smarter. Not only asking whether something is patentable—but above all where and how it creates value.
The future of patents will not lie in blocking screwdrivers, but in understanding markets.
The World of Patents
Every Sunday, Marco Coolen offers an insight into the world of patents.