Article 33 — Data collection
In brief
This article empowers the Office (EUIPO) to collect and analyse anonymised or other non-personal data, provided on a voluntary basis, about transactions where intellectual property rights are used as collateral for credit or insurance or as an in-kind contribution in equity investments. The aim is to support the tasks under Article 32, particularly building an evidence base and improving access to finance, while respecting rules on classified information.
Key points
- Data collection is voluntary and limited to anonymised or other non-personal data on IP-backed financing transactions.
- The Office is to cooperate with Union bodies, Member State authorities, national and regional IP offices, and finance and insurance stakeholders to improve the availability, comparability and reuse of existing data.
- The data may draw on IP registers, business registers, registers of pledges or other rights over IP, and information on valuation, transaction size, the type of IP right and indicators such as equity valuation, collateralisation or loan-to-value ratios.
- The Office is to promote common standards and practices on data quality, formats and proportionate access, and to consider developing digital tools, including studying the feasibility of a Union-wide register of pledges over IP assets.
- Guidance and support measures are to help innovative enterprises, start-ups, scale-ups and SMEs benefit from the improved evidence base.
What it means in practice
IP holders, investors and financial and insurance institutions may be invited to contribute non-personal transaction data and, in return, gain access to a stronger, more comparable evidence base on how IP is valued and used as security. Smaller innovators are singled out as intended beneficiaries, with dedicated guidance to help them make use of the resulting analytical outputs.
Official text — Article 33 (COM(2026) 567)
1. With a view to supporting the fulfilment of the tasks entrusted to the Office under
Article 32, and in particular those relating to the development of an evidence base,
the analysis of data and the support to improved access to finance for the entities
referred to in Art icle 32(2), the Office shall collect and analyse anonymised or other
non-personal data, provided on a voluntary basis, relating to transactions in which
intellectual property rights are used as collateral for credit or insurance purposes or
as in -kind cont ribution in equity investment scenarios, without prejudice to
applicable rules on classified information.
2. When collecting and analysing data in accordance with this Article, the Office shall,
in accordance with Union law, cooperate with Union institutio ns, bodies and
agencies, the competent public authorities of the Member States, national and
regional intellectual property offices, and relevant public and private stakeholders in
the fields of finance and insurance, with a view to facilitating the availa bility,
comparability and reuse of existing data, as well as to exploring, on the basis of
existing data sources and practices, possible approaches for improving transparency
and interoperability across the Union.
3. The data collected and analysed by the Office in accordance with this Article may
include, where available and appropriate, information originating from intellectual
property registers, business registers, registers of pledges or other rights in rem over
intellectual property and similar source s, as well as other relevant information made
available by public authorities or private sector actors, including information on how
intellectual property used as collateral for credit or insurance purposes or as in -kind
contribution in equity investment s cenarios has been evaluated, on the size and
characteristics of the corresponding transaction, on the type of intellectual property
right concerned, and on relevant indicators such as equity valuation, collateralisation,
or loan-to-value ratios.
4. The Of fice shall, in cooperation with the stakeholders concerned, promote the
development of common standards and practices relating to data quality, formats and
access conditions, including differentiated and proportionate access modalities, and
shall provide g uidance and support measures aimed at enabling innovative
enterprises, innovative startups, innovative scaleups and SMEs to benefit from the
improved evidence base and analytical outputs.
5. Where justified by experience gained through the activities refer red to in this Article,
the Office may consider, in cooperation with the stakeholders concerned, the
development of digital tools or structured data systems to further support the
fulfilment of the tasks of the Competence Centre set out in Article 32, incl uding by
investigating the feasibility of a Union -wide register of pledges over intellectual
property assets.
6. The Office shall put in place guidance and support measures to ensure that
innovative enterprises, innovative startups, innovative scaleups an d SMEs can
effectively benefit from the data collected in accordance with this Article.
Source: European Commission, proposal for a Regulation establishing the European Innovation Act, COM(2026) 567 final, 9 September 2026. Read the official proposal (PDF). Text may change during the legislative process.
Anthony Bochon’s analysis
The data-collection mandate is the evidential engine behind the Competence Centre, and its design choices matter a great deal to my clients. By restricting collection to anonymised or other non-personal data, provided on a voluntary basis, on transactions where IP rights serve as collateral or as an in-kind equity contribution, the legislator is trying to assemble the market evidence that lenders say they lack — loan-to-value ratios, collateralisation levels, valuation methods — without colliding with data-protection law or the protection of trade secrets. In my view this is the correct sequence: you cannot build credible valuation standards, or persuade prudential actors to accept IP as security, without a defensible dataset drawn from IP registers, business registers and registers of pledges.
What I would watch is the tension between voluntariness and usefulness. A voluntary evidence base is only as strong as market participation, and financial and insurance stakeholders have historically been reluctant to share deal-level pricing data. The article’s most forward-looking element is paragraph 5’s invitation to explore a Union-wide register of pledges over intellectual property: my reading is that this quietly foreshadows the single most important structural reform for IP finance in Europe, since the fragmentation and unreliability of national security registers over intangibles is, in practice, what deters secured lending against them.