Hubbry Logo
Unitary patentUnitary patentMain
Open search
Unitary patent
Community hub
Unitary patent
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Unitary patent
Unitary patent
Unitary patent
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

European patent with unitary effect
  EU members participating in the unitary patent regulation which have also ratified the UPC Agreement
(unitary patents cover these states)
  EU members participating in the unitary patent regulation which have not ratified the UPC Agreement
(unitary patents do not yet apply to these states)
  EU members neither participating in the unitary patent regulation nor in the UPC Agreement
(eligible for participation in the future)
  Other European Patent Convention parties
(no participation possible)
European patent law
European Patent
Organisation
European Union
Eurasian Patent
Organization
Centralization
and harmonization
Historical proposals

The European patent with unitary effect, also known as the unitary patent, is a European patent which benefits from unitary effect in the participating member states of the European Union.[notes 1] Unitary effect means the patent has a common legal status throughout all the participating states, eliminating scenarios in which a patent may be invalidated by courts in one participating member state yet upheld by courts in another. Unitary effect may be requested by the proprietor within one month of grant of a European patent, replacing validation of the European patent in the individual countries concerned. Infringement and revocation proceedings are conducted before the Unified Patent Court (UPC), which decisions have a uniform effect for the unitary patent in the participating member states as a whole rather than in each country individually. The unitary patent may be only limited, transferred or revoked, or lapse, in respect of all the participating Member States.[1] Licensing is however possible for part of the unitary territory.[2] The unitary patent may coexist with nationally enforceable patents ("classical" patents) in the non-participating states. The unitary patent's stated aims are to make access to the patent system "easier, less costly and legally secure within the European Union" and "the creation of uniform patent protection throughout the Union".[3]

European patents are granted in English, French, or German and the unitary effect will not require further translations after a transition period.[notes 2] The maintenance fees of the unitary patents are lower than the sum of the renewal fees for national patents of the corresponding area, being equivalent to the combined maintenance fees of Germany, France, the UK and the Netherlands (although the UK is no longer participating following Brexit).

The negotiations which resulted in the unitary patent can be traced back to various initiatives dating to the 1970s. At different times, the project, or very similar projects, have been referred to as the "European Union patent" (the name used in the EU treaties, which serve as the legal basis for EU competency), "EU patent", "Community patent", "European Community Patent", "EC patent"[4] and "COMPAT".[5]

On 17 December 2012, agreement was reached between the European Council and European Parliament on the two EU regulations[notes 3] that made the unitary patent possible through enhanced cooperation at EU level. The legality of the two regulations was challenged by Spain and Italy, but all their claims were rejected by the European Court of Justice.[6][7][8] Italy subsequently joined the unitary patent regulation in September 2015,[9] so that all EU member states except Spain and Croatia now participate in the enhanced cooperation for a unitary patent. Unitary effect of newly granted European patents will be available from the date when the related Unified Patent Court Agreement enters into force for those EU countries that have also ratified the UPC,[notes 4] and will extend to those participating member states for which the UPC Agreement enters into force at the time of registration of the unitary patent. Previously granted unitary patents will not automatically get their unitary effect extended to the territory of participating states which ratify the UPC agreement at a later date.

The unitary patent system applies since 1 June 2023, the date of entry into force of the UPC Agreement.[10]

Background

[edit]

Legislative history

[edit]
In 2011, Mikołaj Dowgielewicz, Polish Minister for European and Economic Affairs, said: "We have our backs to the wall: one or two member states are not willing to compromise and there will not be a breakthrough before the end of our Presidency."[11]

In 2009, three draft documents were published regarding a community patent: a European patent in which the European Community was designated:

  1. Council regulation on the community patent,[12]
  2. Agreement on the European and Community Patents Court (open to the European Community and all states of the European Patent Convention)[13]
  3. Decision to open negotiations regarding this Agreement

Based on those documents, the European Council requested on 6 July 2009 an opinion from the Court of Justice of the European Union, regarding the compatibility of the envisioned Agreement with EU law: "'Is the envisaged agreement creating a Unified Patent Litigation System (currently named European and Community Patents Court) compatible with the provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Community?’"[14]

In December 2010, the use of the enhanced co-operation procedure, under which Articles 326–334 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that a group of member states of the European Union can choose to co-operate on a specific topic, was proposed by twelve Member States to set up a unitary patent applicable in all participating European Union Member States.[15] The use of this procedure had only been used once in the past, for harmonising rules regarding the applicable law in divorce across several EU Member States.[15]

In early 2011, the procedure leading to the enhanced co-operation was reported to be progressing. Twenty-five Member States had written to the European Commission requesting to participate, with Spain and Italy remaining outside, primarily on the basis of ongoing concerns over translation issues. On 15 February, the European Parliament approved the use of the enhanced co-operation procedure for unitary patent protection by a vote of 471 to 160,[16] and on 10 March 2011 the Council gave their authorisation.[17][18] Two days earlier, on 8 March 2011, the Court of Justice of the European Union had issued its opinion, stating that the draft Agreement creating the European and Community Patent Court would be incompatible with EU law.[19] The same day, the Hungarian Presidency of the Council insisted that this opinion would not affect the enhanced co-operation procedure.[20]

In November 2011, negotiations on the enhanced co-operation system were reportedly advancing rapidly—too fast, in some views.[21] It was announced that implementation required an enabling European Regulation, and a Court agreement between the states that elect to take part. The European Parliament approved the continuation of negotiations in September.[22] A draft of the agreement was issued on 11 November 2011 and was open to all member states of the European Union, but not to other European Patent Convention states.[23] However, serious criticisms of the proposal remained mostly unresolved.[24] A meeting of the Competitiveness Council on 5 December failed to agree on the final text.[25] In particular, there was no agreement on where the Central Division of a Unified Patent Court should be located,[26] "with London, Munich and Paris the candidate cities."[27]

The Polish Presidency acknowledged on 16 December 2011 the failure to reach an agreement "on the question of the location of the seat of the central division."[11] The Danish Presidency therefore inherited the issue.[11][28][29] According to the President of the European Commission in January 2012, the only question remaining to be settled was the location of the Central Division of the Court.[30] However, evidence presented to the UK House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee in February suggested that the position was more complicated.[31] At an EU summit at the end of January 2012, participants agreed to press on and finalise the system by June.[32] On 26 April, Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council, wrote to members of the council, saying "This important file has been discussed for many years and we are now very close to a final deal,.... This deal is needed now, because this is an issue of crucial importance for innovation and growth. I very much hope that the last outstanding issue will be sorted out at the May Competitiveness Council. If not, I will take it up at the June European Council."[33] The Competitiveness Council met on 30 May and failed to reach agreement.[34]

A compromise agreement on the seat(s) of the unified court was eventually reached at the June European Council (28–29 June 2012), splitting the central division according to technology between Paris (the main seat), London and Munich.[35][36] However, on 2 July 2012, the European Parliament decided to postpone the vote following a move by the European Council to modify the arrangements previously approved by MEPs in negotiations with the European Council. The modification was considered controversial and included the deletion of three key articles (6–8) of the legislation, seeking to reduce the competence of the European Union Court of Justice in unitary patent litigation.[37] On 9 July 2012, the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament debated the patent package following the decisions adopted by the General Council on 28–29 June 2012 in camera in the presence of MEP Bernhard Rapkay.[38] A later press release by Rapkay quoted from a legal opinion submitted by the Legal Service of the European Parliament, which affirmed the concerns of MEPs to approve the decision of a recent EU summit to delete said articles as it "nullifies central aspects of a substantive patent protection". A Europe-wide uniform protection of intellectual property would thus not exist with the consequence that the requirements of the corresponding EU treaty would not be met and that the European Court of Justice could therefore invalidate the legislation.[39] By the end of 2012 a new compromise was reached between the European Parliament and the European Council, including a limited role for the European Court of Justice. The Unified Court will apply the Unified Patent Court Agreement, which is considered national patent law from an EU law point of view, but still is equal for each participant.[40] [However the draft statutory instrument aimed at implementation of the Unified Court and UPC in the UK provides for different infringement laws for: European patents (unitary or not) litigated through the Unified Court; European patents (UK) litigated before UK courts; and national patents]. The legislation for the enhanced co-operation mechanism was approved by the European Parliament on 11 December 2012[41] and the regulations were signed by the European Council and European Parliament officials on 17 December 2012.

On 30 May 2011, Italy and Spain challenged the council's authorisation of the use of enhanced co-operation to introduce the trilingual (English, French, German) system for the unitary patent, which they viewed as discriminatory to their languages, with the CJEU on the grounds that it did not comply with the EU treaties.[42][43] In January 2013, Advocate General Yves Bot delivered his recommendation that the court reject the complaint. Suggestions by the Advocate General are advisory only, but are generally followed by the court.[44] The case was dismissed by the court in April 2013,[42][45] however Spain launched two new challenges with the EUCJ in March 2013 against the regulations implementing the unitary patent package. The court hearing for both cases was scheduled for 1 July 2014.[46][47] Advocate-General Yves Bot published his opinion on 18 November 2014, suggesting that both actions be dismissed (ECLI:EU:C:2014:2380 and ECLI:EU:C:2014:2381). The court handed down its decisions on 5 May 2015 as ECLI:EU:C:2015:298 and ECLI:EU:C:2015:299 fully dismissing the Spanish claims. Following a request by its government,[48] Italy became a participant of the unitary patent regulations in September 2015.[9]

European patents

[edit]
Main article: European Patent Convention

European patents are granted in accordance with the provisions of the European Patent Convention (EPC),[49] via a unified procedure before the European Patent Office (EPO). While upon filing of a European patent application, all 39 Contracting States are automatically designated, a European patent becomes a bundle of "national" European patents upon grant. In contrast to the unified character of a European patent application, a granted European patent has, in effect, no unitary character, except for the centralized opposition procedure (which can be initiated within 9 months from grant, by somebody else than the patent proprietor), and the centralized limitation and revocation procedures (which can only be instituted by the patent proprietor).[50] In other words, a European patent in one Contracting State, i.e. a "national" European patent,[notes 5] is effectively independent of the same European patent in each other Contracting State, except for the opposition, limitation and revocation procedures. The enforcement of a European patent is dealt with by national law.[51] The abandonment, revocation or limitation of the European patent in one state does not affect the European patent in other states.

While the EPC already provided the possibility for a group of member states to allow European patents to have a unitary character also after grant, until now, only Liechtenstein and Switzerland have opted to create a unified protection area (see Unitary patent (Switzerland and Liechtenstein)).[52]

By requesting unitary effect within one month of grant, the patent proprietor is now able to obtain uniform protection in the participating members states of the European Union in a single step, considerably simplifying obtaining patent protection in a large part of the EU. The unitary patent system co-exists with national patent systems and European patent without unitary effects. The unitary patent does not cover EPC countries that are not member of the European Union, such as UK or Turkey.

[edit]

The implementation of the unitary patent is based on three legal instruments:[53]

  • Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection;[3]
  • Council Regulation (EU) No 1260/2012 of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements;[54]
  • Agreement on a Unified Patent Court.[55]

Thus the unitary patent is based on EU law as well as the European Patent Convention (EPC). Article 142 EPC provides the legal basis for establishing a common system of patents for Parties to the EPC.[56] Previously, only Liechtenstein and Switzerland had used this possibility to create a unified protection area (see Unitary patent (Switzerland and Liechtenstein)).[52]

Regulations regarding the unitary patent

[edit]
Regulation 1257/2012 & 1260/2012
European Union regulation
Text adopted under the Enhanced cooperation procedure
Title1257/2012: Implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection
1260/2012: Implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements
ApplicabilityAll current EU members, except Spain and Croatia.
Made byEuropean Parliament and Council
Made underArticle 118 of the TFEU, and
Council Decision 2011/167/EU
Journal referenceL361, 31.12.2012, p.1-8, 89-92
History
Date made17 December 2012
Entry into force20 January 2013[57]
Implementation date1 June 2023
Pending legislation

The first two regulations were approved by the European Parliament on 11 December 2012, with future application set for the 25 member states then participating in the enhanced cooperation for a unitary patent (all then EU member states except Croatia, Italy and Spain).[41][58][59][60][61] The instruments were adopted as regulations EU 1257/2012[3] and 1260/2012[54] on 17 December 2012, and entered into force in January 2013. Following a request by its government,[48] Italy became a participant of the unitary patent regulations in September 2015.[9]

As of March 2022, neither of the two remaining non-participants in the unitary patent (Spain and Croatia) had requested the European Commission to participate.

Although formally the Regulations will apply to all 25 participating states from the moment the UPC Agreement enters into force for the first group of ratifiers,[notes 4] the unitary effect of newly granted unitary patents will only extend to those of the 25 states where the UPC Agreement has entered into force, while patent coverage for other participating states without UPC Agreement ratification will be covered by a coexisting normal European patent in each of those states.[62]

The unitary effect of unitary patents means a single renewal fee, a single ownership, a single object of property, a single court (the Unified Patent Court) and uniform protection, which means that revocation as well as infringement proceedings are to be decided for the unitary patent as a whole rather than for each country individually. Licensing is however to remain possible for part of the unitary territory.[3]

Role of the European Patent Office

[edit]

Some administrative tasks relating to the European patents with unitary effect are performed by the European Patent Office,[63] as authorized by Article 143(1) EPC. These tasks include the collection of renewal fees and registration of unitary effect upon grant, recording licenses and statements that licenses are available to any person.[63] Decisions of the European Patent Office regarding the unitary patent are open to appeal to the Unified Patent Court, rather than to the EPO Boards of Appeal.[64]

Translation requirements for the European patent with unitary effect

[edit]

For a unitary patent, ultimately no translation will be required (except under certain circumstances in the event of a dispute[54]: recital (8) and Art. 4 ), which is expected to significantly reduce the cost for protection in the whole area. However, Regulation 1260/2012 provides that, during a transitional period of minimum six years and no more than twelve years, one translation needs to be provided.[54]: Art. 6  Namely, a full translation of the European patent specification needs to be provided either into English if the language of the proceedings at the EPO was French or German, or into any other EU official language if the language of the proceedings at the EPO was English.[54]: Art. 6  Such translation will have no legal effect and will be "for information purposes only”.[54]: 6.2, second sentence  In addition, machine translations will be provided, which will be, in the words of the regulation, "for information purposes only and should not have any legal effect".[54]: recital (11) 

Comparison with the current translation requirements for traditional bundle European patents

[edit]

In several EPC contracting states, for the national part of a traditional bundle European patent (i.e., for a European patent without unitary effect), a translation has to be filed within a three-month time limit after the publication of grant in the European Patent Bulletin under Article 65 EPC,[notes 6] otherwise the patent is considered never to have existed (void ab initio) in that state. For the 22 parties to the London Agreement, this requirement has already been abolished or reduced (e.g. by dispensing with the requirement if the patent is available in English, and/or only requiring translation of the claims).[65]

Translation requirements for the participating states in the enhanced cooperation for a unitary patent are shown below:

Participating member State (bold: unitary patents apply) Translation requirements for a European patent without unitary effect[65] Translation requirements for a European patent with unitary effect
Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg None During a transitional period of minimum 6 years and maximum 12 years: one translation, so that the unitary patent is available in English and at least another EU official language.
After the transitional period: none.
Latvia, Lithuania,[66] Slovenia Claims in the official language of the concerned State
Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Netherlands, Sweden Description in English, claims in the official language of the concerned State
Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia Translation of the complete patent in an official language of the concerned State

Unitary patent as an object of property

[edit]

Article 7 of Regulation 1257/2012 provides that, as an object of property, a European patent with unitary effect will be treated "in its entirety and in all participating Member States as a national patent of the participating Member State in which that patent has unitary effect and in which the applicant had her/his residence or principal place of business or, by default, had a place of business on the date of filing the application for the European patent."[67] When the applicant had no domicile in a participating Member State, German law will apply.[67] Ullrich has the criticized the system, which is similar to the Community Trademark and the Community Design, as being "in conflict with both the purpose of the creation of unitary patent protection and with primary EU law."[67]

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

[edit]
Unitary patent is located in European Union
Court
Court
Court
Court
Arbitration/Mediation
Arbitration/Mediation
Arbitration/Mediation
Arbitration/Mediation
Court of Appeal
Court of Appeal
class=notpageimage|
Locations of the Court of First Instance (Central division, "Court"), the Court of Appeal and the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre. In addition, several local and regional divisions of the Court of First Instance have been established.

The Agreement on a Unified Patent Court provides the legal basis for the Unified Patent Court (UPC): a patent court for European patents (with and without unitary effect), with jurisdiction in those countries where the Agreement is in effect. In addition to regulations regarding the court structure, it also contains substantive provisions relating to the right to prevent use of an invention and allowed use by non-patent proprietors (e.g. for private non-commercial use), preliminary and permanent injunctions. Entry into force for the UPC took place after Germany deposited its instrument of ratification of the UPC Agreement, which triggered the countdown until the Agreement's entry into force on June 1, 2023.[68]

Parties

[edit]

The UPC Agreement was signed on 19 February 2013 by 24 EU member states, including all states then participating in the enhanced co-operation measures except Bulgaria and Poland.[69] Bulgaria signed the agreement on 5 March 2013 following internal administrative procedures. Italy, which did not originally join the enhanced co-operation measures but subsequently signed up, did sign the UPC agreement.[70] The agreement remains open to accession for all remaining EU member states,[71] with all European Union Member States except Spain and Poland having signed the Agreement.[72] States which do not participate in the unitary patent regulations can still become parties to the UPC agreement, which would allow the new court to handle European patents validated in the country.[73]

On 18 January 2019, Kluwer Patent Blog wrote, "a recurring theme for some years has been that 'the UPC will start next year'". Then, Brexit and German constitutional court complaint were considered as the main obstacles. The German constitutional court first decided in a decision of 13 February 2020 against the German ratification of the Agreement on the ground that the German Parliament did not vote with the required majority (2/3 according to the judgement). After a second vote and further, this time unsuccessful, constitutional complaints, Germany formally ratified the UPC Agreement on 7 August 2021. While the UK ratified the agreement in April 2018, the UK later withdrew from the Agreement following Brexit.[74]

As of the entry into force of the UPC on 1 June 2023, 17 countries had ratified the Agreement.[75] Romania ratified the agreement in May 2024, and will join as the 18th participating member on 1 September 2024.

Jurisdiction

[edit]

The Unified Patent Court has exclusive jurisdiction in infringement and revocation proceedings involving European patents with unitary effect, and during a transition period non-exclusive jurisdiction regarding European patents without unitary effect in the states where the Agreement applies, unless the patent proprietor decides to opt out.[76] It furthermore has jurisdiction to hear cases against decisions of the European Patent Office regarding unitary patents. As a court of several member states of the European Union it may (Court of First Instance) or must (Court of Appeal) ask prejudicial questions to the European Court of Justice when the interpretation of EU law (including the two unitary patent regulations, but excluding the UPC Agreement) is not obvious.

Organization

[edit]

The court has two instances: a court of first instance and a court of appeal. The court of appeal and the registry have their seats in Luxembourg, while the central division of the court of first instance would have its seat in Paris. The central division has a thematic branch in Munich (the London location has yet to be replaced by a new location within the EU).[35][77] The court of first instance may further have local and regional divisions in all member states that wish to set up such divisions.

Geographical scope of and request for unitary effect

[edit]

While the regulations formally apply to all 25 member states participating in the enhanced cooperation for a unitary patent, from the date the UPC agreement has entered into force for the first group of ratifiers,[notes 4] unitary patents will only extend to the territory of those participating member states where the UPC Agreement had entered into force when the unitary effect was registered. If the unitary effect territory subsequently expands to additional participating member states for which the UPC Agreement later enters into force, this will be reflected for all subsequently registered unitary patents, but the territorial scope of the unitary effect of existing unitary patents will not be extended to these states.[62]

Unitary effect can be requested up to one month after grant of the European patent directly at the EPO, with retroactive effect from the date of grant. However, according to the Draft Rules Relating to Unitary Patent Protection, unitary effect would be registered only if the European patent has been granted with the same set of claims[notes 7] for all the 25 participating member states in the regulations,[notes 8] whether the unitary effect applies to them or not.[80] European patents automatically become a bundle of "national" European patents upon grant. Upon the grant of unitary effect, the "national" European patents will retroactively be considered to never have existed in the territories where the unitary patent has effect. The unitary effect does not affect "national" European patents in states where the unitary patent does not apply. Any "national" European patents applying outside the "unitary effect" zone will co-exist with the unitary patent.[62]

Special territories of participating member states

[edit]

As the unitary patent is introduced by an EU regulation, it is expected to not only be valid in the mainland territory of the participating member states that are party to the UPC, but also in those of their special territories that are part of the European Union. As of April 2014, this includes the following fourteen territories:

In addition to the territories above, the European Patent Convention has been extended by two member states participating in the enhanced cooperation for a unitary patent to cover some of their dependent territories outside the European Union:[81] In following of those territories, the unitary patent is de facto extended through application of national (French, or Dutch) law:

However, the unitary patent does not apply in the French territories French Polynesia and New Caledonia as implementing legislation would need to be passed by those jurisdictions (rather than the French national legislation required in the other territories) and this has not been done.[82]

Costs

[edit]
Yearly renewal fee for the unitary patent

The renewal fees are planned to be based on the cumulative renewal fees due in the four countries where European patents were most often validated in 2015 (Germany, France, the UK and the Netherlands).[85] This is despite the UK leaving the unitary patent system following Brexit. The renewal fees of the unitary patent would thus be ranging from 35 Euro in the second year to 4855 in the 20th year. The renewal fees will be collected by the EPO, with the EPO keeping 50% of the fees and the other 50% being redistributed to the participating member states.

Translation requirements as well as the requirement to pay yearly patent maintenance fees in individual countries presently renders the European patent system costly to obtain protection in the whole of the European Union.

In an impact assessment from 2011, the European Commission estimated that the costs of obtaining a patent in all 27 EU countries would drop from over 32 000 euro (mainly due to translation costs) to 6 500 euro (for the combination of an EU, Spanish and Italian patent) due to introduction of the Unitary patent. Per capita costs of an EU patent were estimated at just 6 euro/million in the original 25 participating countries (and 12 euro/million in the 27 EU countries for protection with a Unitary, Italian and Spanish patent).[86]

How the EU Commission has presented the expected cost savings has however been sharply criticized as exaggerated and based on unrealistic assumptions. The EU Commission has notably considered the costs for validating a European patent in 27 countries while in reality only about 1% of all granted European patents are currently validated in all 27 EU states. Based on more realistic assumptions, the cost savings are expected to be much lower than actually claimed by the commission.[87] For example, the EPO calculated that for an average EP patent validated and maintained in 4 countries, the overall savings to be between 3% and 8%.[85]

Statistics

[edit]

During the first year of the unitary patent, that is, from 1 June 2023, to 31 May 2024, more than 27500 European patents with unitary effect have been registered. This corresponds to almost a quarter of all European patents granted during that period.[88]

Earlier attempts

[edit]

1970s and 1980s: proposed Community Patent Convention

[edit]

Work on a Community patent started in the 1970s, but the resulting Community Patent Convention (CPC) was a failure.

The "Luxembourg Conference on the Community Patent" took place in 1975 and the Convention for the European Patent for the common market, or (Luxembourg) Community Patent Convention (CPC), was signed at Luxembourg on 15 December 1975, by the 9 member states of the European Economic Community at that time.[89] However, the CPC never entered into force. It was not ratified by enough countries.[90]

Fourteen years later, the Agreement relating to Community patents was made at Luxembourg on 15 December 1989.[91] It attempted to revive the CPC project, but also failed. This Agreement consisted of an amended version of the original Community Patent Convention. Twelve states signed the Agreement: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and United Kingdom. All of those states would need to have ratified the Agreement to cause it to enter into force,[92] but only seven did so: Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and United Kingdom.[93][94]

Nevertheless, a majority of member states of the EEC at that time introduced some harmonisation into their national patent laws in anticipation of the entry in force of the CPC. A more substantive harmonisation took place at around the same time to take account of the European Patent Convention and the Strasbourg Convention.

2000 to 2004: EU Regulation proposal

[edit]

In 2000, renewed efforts from the European Union resulted in a Community Patent Regulation proposal, sometimes abbreviated as CPR. It provides that the patent, once it has been granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) in one of its procedural languages (English, German or French) and published in that language, with a translation of the claims into the two other procedural languages, will be valid without any further translation. This proposal is aimed to achieve a considerable reduction in translation costs.

Nevertheless, additional translations could become necessary in legal proceedings against a suspected infringer. In such a situation, a suspected infringer who has been unable to consult the text of the patent in the official language of the Member State in which he is domiciled, is presumed, until proven otherwise, not to have knowingly infringed the patent. To protect a suspected infringer who, in such a situation, has not acted in a deliberate manner, it is provided that the proprietor of the patent will not be able to obtain damages in respect of the period prior to the translation of the patent being notified to the infringer.

The proposed Community Patent Regulation should also establish a court holding exclusive jurisdiction to invalidate issued patents; thus, a Community Patent's validity will be the same in all EU member states. This court will be attached to the present European Court of Justice and Court of First Instance through use of provisions in the Treaty of Nice.

Discussion regarding the Community patent had made clear progress in 2003 when a political agreement was reached on 3 March 2003. However, one year later in March 2004 under the Irish presidency, the Competitiveness Council failed to agree on the details of the Regulation. In particular the time delays for translating the claims and the authentic text of the claims in case of an infringement remained problematic issues throughout discussions and in the end proved insoluble.

In view of the difficulties in reaching an agreement on the community patent,[95] other legal agreements have been proposed outside the European Union legal framework to reduce the cost of translation (of patents when granted) and litigation, namely the London Agreement, which entered into force on 1 May 2008—and which has reduced the number of countries requiring translation of European patents granted nowadays under the European Patent Convention, and the corresponding costs to obtain a European patent[96]—and the European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA), a proposal that has now lapsed.

Reactions to the failure

[edit]
Romano Prodi (here on a picture taken in 2006) cited the failure to agree on a Europewide patent as a weak point of his five-year term as President of the European Commission.

After the council in March 2004, EU Commissioner Frits Bolkestein said that "The failure to agree on the Community Patent I am afraid undermines the credibility of the whole enterprise to make Europe the most competitive economy in the world by 2010." Adding:

It is a mystery to me how Ministers at the so-called 'Competitiveness Council' can keep a straight face when they adopt conclusions for the Spring European Council on making Europe more competitive and yet in the next breath backtrack on the political agreement already reached on the main principles of the Community Patent in March of last year. I can only hope that one day the vested, protectionist interests that stand in the way of agreement on this vital measure will be sidelined by the over-riding importance and interests of European manufacturing industry and Europe's competitiveness. That day has not yet come.[97]

Jonathan Todd, Commission's Internal Market spokesman, declared:

Normally, after the common political approach, the text of the regulation is agreed very quickly. Instead, some Member States appear to have changed their positions. (...) It is extremely unfortunate that European industry's competitiveness, innovation and R&D are being sacrificed for the sake of preserving narrow vested interests.[98]

European Commission President Romano Prodi, asked to evaluate his five-year term, cited as his weak point the failure of many EU governments to implement the "Lisbon Agenda", agreed in 2001. In particular, he cited the failure to agree on a Europewide patent, or even the languages to be used for such a patent, "because member states did not accept a change in the rules; they were not coherent".[99]

Since 2005: stalemate and new debate

[edit]
In 2007, Charlie McCreevy was quoted as saying that the proposal for an EU-wide patent was stuck in the mud.

Thus, in 2005, the Community patent looked unlikely to be implemented in the near future. However, on 16 January 2006 the European Commission "launched a public consultation on how future action in patent policy to create an EU-wide system of protection can best take account of stakeholders' needs." The Community patent was one of the issues the consultation focused on.[100] More than 2500 replies were received.[5] According to the European Commission, the consultation showed that there is widespread support for the Community patent but not at any cost, and "in particular not on the basis of the Common Political Approach reached by EU Ministers in 2003".[5]

In February 2007, EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy was quoted as saying:

The proposal for an EU-wide patent is stuck in the mud. It is clear to me from discussions with member states that there is no consensus at present on how to improve the situation.[101]

The European Commission released a white paper in April 2007 seeking to "improve the patent system in Europe and revitalise the debate on this issue."[102] On 18 April 2007, at the European Patent Forum in Munich, Germany, Günter Verheugen, vice-president of the European Commission, said that his proposal to support the European economy was "to have the London Agreement ratified by all member states, and to have a European patent judiciary set up, in order to achieve rapid implementation of the Community patent, which is indispensable".[103] He further said that he believed this could be done within five years.[103][104]

In October 2007, the Portuguese presidency of the Council of the European Union proposed an EU patent jurisdiction, "borrowing heavily from the rejected draft European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA)".[105] In November 2007, EU ministers were reported to have made some progress towards a community patent legal system, with "some specific results" expected in 2008.[106]

In 2008, the idea of using machine translations to translate patents was proposed to solve the language issue, which is partially responsible for blocking progress on the community patent.[107][108] Meanwhile, European Commissioner for Enterprise and Industry Günter Verheugen declared at the European Patent Forum in May 2008 that there was an "urgent need" for a community patent.[109]

Agreement in December 2009, and language issue

[edit]

In December 2009, it was reported that the Swedish EU presidency had achieved a breakthrough in negotiations concerning the community patent. The breakthrough was reported to involve setting up a single patent court for the EU,[110] however ministers conceded much work remained to be done before the community patent would become a reality.[111][112]

According to the agreed plan, the EU would accede to the European Patent Convention as a contracting state, and patents granted by the European Patent Office will, when validated for the EU, have unitary effect in the territory of the European Union.[113] On 10 November 2010, it was announced that no agreement had been reached and that, "in spite of the progress made, [the Competitiveness Council of the European Union had] fallen short of unanimity by a small margin,"[114] with commentators reporting that the Spanish representative, citing the aim to avoid any discrimination,[115] had "re-iterated at length the stubborn rejection of the Madrid Government of taking the 'Munich' three languages regime (English, German, French) of the European Patent Convention (EPC) as a basis for a future EU Patent."[116]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Unitary patent

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

The unitary patent is a European patent granted by the that acquires unitary effect upon registration, conferring uniform as a single, indivisible right across all participating member states without requiring separate national validations or designations. This system eliminates the need for multiple parallel national patents or validations post-grant, streamlining and through a single set of renewal fees and a centralized for litigation. Launched on 1 June 2023 after prolonged negotiations dating back to the and formalized by the 2012 EU unitary patent regulation and the Agreement on a , it initially covers 18 EU states, with opt-outs from countries like and reflecting concerns over , cost uniformity, and the risks of centralized invalidation affecting broad territories. Key features include cost reductions for applicants seeking multi-country coverage, estimated at up to 70% savings on validation and renewal compared to the prior fragmented system, though it introduces challenges such as uniform exhaustion rules and the potential for pan-European injunctions or revocations via the UPC, which has handled over 370 cases in its first year of operation. Despite initial hesitations and transitional provisions allowing opt-outs for existing European patents, the framework has accelerated adoption, with thousands of unitary effects registered, fostering greater and efficiency in EU-wide while centralizing to mitigate and inconsistent national rulings.

Overview

Definition and Core Mechanism

The unitary patent is a European patent granted unitary effect under Council Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012, conferring uniform intellectual property protection across participating member states via a single registration procedure at the (EPO). This effect transforms a centrally granted European patent into an indivisible right applicable without national variations in scope, duration, or maintenance requirements among the designated territories, thereby addressing prior fragmentation where European patents required separate validations in each contracting state under the . The core mechanism initiates post-grant: upon publication of the EPO's mention of grant in the European Patent Bulletin, the proprietor files a request for unitary effect within one month, accompanied by a statement on language of proceedings if applicable. The EPO's Unitary Patent Division examines compliance with formal and substantive criteria, including declarations under the Agreement; if approved, registration occurs, effective retroactively from the grant date and covering all ratifying states without further action. Protection endures for the patent's unexpired term, sustained by annual renewal fees calculated via a weighted formula reflecting participating states' GDP shares, eliminating per-country filings and translations beyond the EPO's official languages (English, French, German). Operational since 1 June 2023, the system initially encompassed 17 member states party to the Agreement on a , expanding to 18 with Romania's accession on 1 September 2024. This centralized validation causally streamlines enforcement by obviating divergent national procedures, enabling proprietors to secure broad territorial coverage efficiently while preserving options for those preferring classical bundle validations in select jurisdictions.

Distinctions from Classical European Patent Bundles

The classical European patent, upon grant by the (EPO), constitutes a bundle of independent national patents, each requiring separate validation in individual contracting states, including full or partial translations into official national languages, payment of distinct validation fees, and ongoing maintenance through country-specific renewal fees. This fragmented approach results in elevated administrative costs—estimated at up to €11,000 for validation across multiple states plus annual renewals varying by jurisdiction—and potential inconsistencies in enforcement, as infringement or validity challenges must be pursued separately in national courts of each designated state, leading to divergent judicial outcomes. In contrast, the unitary patent extends uniform legal effect automatically across all participating member states upon EPO registration, eliminating the need for per-state validations or translations beyond an initial language declaration, with a single set of renewal fees scaled by overall coverage to promote broader at reduced cost—potentially 30-50% lower than equivalent classical bundles for extensive territorial scope. Enforcement occurs exclusively before the (UPC), providing centralized jurisdiction that ensures consistent rulings applicable territory-wide, thereby mitigating the risks of conflicting national decisions inherent in the classical model. A fundamental distinction lies in the unitary patent's status as an indivisible object of property, treated in its entirety as a national right under the applicable of the holder's seat or residence, which precludes territorial fragmentation and mandates transfer, licensing, or enforcement as a unified whole across participating states. Classical bundles, however, permit splitting rights on a per-state basis, enabling tailored strategies but complicating asset management and increasing transaction costs. Since the UPC's entry into operation on June 1, 2023, holders of classical European patents can file s to exclude them from UPC during a seven-year transitional period (extendable to 14 years), preserving national court handling and replicating traditional bundle flexibilities amid concerns over centralized litigation risks; such s, numbering over 535,000 by late June 2023, do not apply to unitary patents, which remain inherently bound to the UPC.

Historical Context

Initial Proposals in the Community Patent Era (1970s-1980s)

The initial efforts toward a supranational patent system in the emerged in the 1970s, building on the 1973 , which centralized grant procedures but left enforcement fragmented across national systems. Proponents argued that a "Community patent" with uniform effect across member states would reduce duplication, lower validation costs, and facilitate cross-border innovation by eliminating the need for separate national filings. However, these proposals quickly encountered resistance rooted in linguistic diversity and national sovereignty, as states demanded protections for their official languages and retained veto mechanisms over enforcement. The Community Convention (CPC) was signed on 15 December 1975 in by the nine member states, aiming to grant European patents unitary effect within the Community upon validation. Under the CPC, patentees would designate states for protection and provide full translations of the patent specification into each state's , a requirement that imposed substantial administrative burdens. The convention's litigation framework further complicated adoption, incorporating a "" that allowed any member state to demand referral of infringement or validity disputes to its national courts, effectively granting veto power and undermining uniformity. These provisions reflected causal priorities of national interests—particularly linguistic equivalence and judicial autonomy—over integration, leading to insufficient ratifications; the CPC never entered into force as key states withheld approval amid disputes over translation obligations and enforcement centralization. Amendments pursued in conferences during 1985 and 1989 sought to address these flaws by limiting full translations to post-grant challenges and streamlining validation, culminating in the Agreement relating to Patents signed on 15 December 1989 by all twelve member states. Despite these revisions, stalled due to persistent concerns over residual translation costs, which analyses indicated could deter small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) from seeking broad protection given the need for multilingual filings across an expanding . States like and opposed the regime for insufficient safeguards for non-procedural languages, exemplifying how sovereignty assertions—prioritizing domestic legal traditions and economic protections—perpetuated fragmentation. Empirically, the era's national silos enforced disparate validation and renewal fees, with patentees facing up to eleven separate procedures, stifling efficient as firms opted for selective national coverage to manage expenses. This outcome underscored a core inefficiency: while centralized granting via the reduced examination redundancy, the absence of unitary post-grant effects maintained high barriers to market-wide , a hurdle later overcome only through pragmatic concessions on language and .

Stalemate and Renewed Efforts (1990s-2000s)

The European Commission's proposal for a Community , introduced on 1 2000, aimed to establish a single valid across all member states through centralized granting by the and a limited regime requiring validation in one of English, French, or German, with full translations only upon litigation. This approach sought to reduce costs and fragmentation but encountered immediate resistance from and , which argued that privileging these three languages disadvantaged speakers of other official languages, potentially entrenching economic and cultural dominance by , , and English-speaking states. Despite a common political approach agreed by the on 3 March 2003 outlining compromise language and jurisdictional elements, the initiative collapsed in 2004 when and exercised vetoes under the 's unanimity requirement for measures, halting progress. The failure elicited sharp reactions from industry groups, with organizations like UNICE (predecessor to BusinessEurope) decrying the outcome as a setback for competitiveness and urging a simplified regime to lower validation costs estimated at up to €30,000 per patent bundle under the existing system. National governments and patent practitioners countered with concerns over eroded judicial sovereignty, as a centralized system would diminish member states' control over infringement rulings and enforcement, potentially exposing smaller economies to biased outcomes favoring larger patent holders. linked the persistent fragmentation to subdued R&D returns, with studies indicating that high validation and litigation costs across 25 jurisdictions in the pre-unitary era reduced private investment incentives compared to unified systems in the and , where Europe's patent expenses were 2-3 times higher per application. This stalemate, rooted in the Treaty-mandated for , underscored a structural mismatch between veto-enabled national protections and market imperatives for streamlined IP to bolster global R&D flows, with fragmented enforcement correlating to lower intra- and investment yields. Such sovereignty-centric blocks, prioritizing linguistic equity and judicial over efficiency, prefigured broader tensions in integration debates, including those amplifying calls for national control in the .

Resolution Amid Linguistic and Political Hurdles (2009-2012)

In December 2009, the EU Competitiveness Council adopted conclusions endorsing an enhanced patent system for Europe, marking a breakthrough in resolving linguistic barriers that had stalled progress for decades. The agreement specified that European patents would be granted in English, French, or German, with claims translated into the other two languages and full-text machine translations into all EU languages to be developed and provided post-grant, addressing demands from linguistically diverse member states for accessibility without mandating exhaustive human translations upfront. This compromise, driven by empirical assessments of translation costs exceeding €800 million annually under prior validation regimes, shifted from full linguistic equivalence to pragmatic technological solutions, enabling subsequent ratification paths despite opposition from states like Spain and Italy prioritizing national language protections. The intensified political momentum for reform, as contracting economies underscored the inefficiencies of fragmented national validations—averaging 8-10 validations per patent at high per-country fees—prompting a causal push toward unitary protection to lower administrative burdens on innovators amid reduced R&D budgets. leaders, facing GDP contractions of up to 4.5% in 2009 across member states, prioritized efficiency gains estimated at 80% cost savings for patentees over ideological resistance to supranationalism. In April 2011, the proposed a legislative package under , authorizing 25 member states (excluding and ) to proceed without unanimous consent, a mechanism invoked to bypass vetoes rooted in sovereignty concerns. By December , the Competitiveness finalized political agreement on the unitary patent , incorporating safeguards like dispute-triggered full human translations funded initially by the , reflecting forced concessions to linguistic minorities while advancing toward adoption. The package culminated in (EU) No 1257/2012 establishing unitary effect and No 1260/2012 on translations, both enacted in December 2012, which deferred comprehensive machine-readable full-text availability to technological maturity rather than immediate perfection. Parallel UPC negotiations addressed political hurdles through provisions under Article 83, allowing participating states to exempt patents from UPC jurisdiction for renewable seven-year periods, serving as pragmatic bulwarks against fears of eroded national judicial autonomy. These elements debunked illusions of frictionless integration, as empirical ratification delays evidenced by Spain's and Italy's initial challenges highlighted sovereignty trade-offs, with 25 pre-Brexit states signing the UPC Agreement in early 2013 following 2012 draft finalization.

Primary Regulations and the Unitary Patent Package

Council Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 establishes the legal framework for a European patent with unitary effect, implementing enhanced cooperation among participating EU member states to provide uniform patent protection across their territories. This regulation defines the unitary effect as applying to a European patent granted under the European Patent Convention (EPC) with identical claims in all participating states, conferring equal rights and obligations without fragmentation into national patents. The criteria require that the patent be registered in the EPO's Register for Unitary Patent Protection following a request filed within one month of the publication of the mention of grant in the European Patent Bulletin. Participation is limited to member states involved in the enhanced cooperation, initially encompassing 25 EU countries as authorized by Council Decision 2011/167/EU, with the unitary effect extending uniformly to all such states at the time of registration. The unitary effect takes retroactive force from the date of grant publication, treating the patent as a single right rather than a bundle of national validations. Council Regulation (EU) No 1260/2012 complements Regulation 1257/2012 by specifying translation arrangements to facilitate access to unitary patents while minimizing ongoing linguistic burdens. Under its provisions, no translation is required for the initial request if the patent specification has been published in an EPO official language pursuant to Article 14(6) EPC; otherwise, during a transitional period, a full translation into English (for proceedings in French or German) or into any official EU language (for English proceedings) must accompany the request. This transitional period, commencing with the regulation's applicability, endures for up to 12 years or until high-quality machine translation tools enable verifiable equivalence into all EU official languages, including those of non-tri-lingual states such as Irish and Croatian. An independent committee evaluates progress biennially after the sixth year, overseeing the phase-out to eliminate mandatory full translations post-transition, thereby reducing costs and administrative hurdles associated with multilingual validation. The two regulations interlink to centralize patent rights management under EPO oversight, as Regulation 1257/2012 mandates EPO administration of registration and effects while Regulation 1260/2012 addresses linguistic equity without altering grant procedures. This design achieves unitary territorial coverage and uniform enforcement potential across participating states, sidestepping full supranational granting authority by leveraging the existing EPC framework, though it imposes no retroactive territorial expansion for prior registrations upon new state accessions.

Integration with European Patent Convention Procedures

The unitary patent system integrates with the European Patent Convention (EPC) by preserving the centralized pre-grant examination and grant procedures administered by the European Patent Office (EPO). Under the EPC, the EPO evaluates applications for novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability, culminating in the grant of a European patent that initially takes effect as a bundle of national patents in designated contracting states. The unitary effect represents a post-grant option that does not alter this substantive examination process, ensuring continuity with EPC Article 97 on grant requirements and Article 64 on designation of states. Upon publication of the mention of the grant in the European Patent Bulletin, patent proprietors have one month to file a request for unitary effect with the EPO, which then verifies compliance with Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 and registers the effect if met. This registration extends uniform protection across participating EU member states without requiring separate national validations for those territories, building on EPC Article 63 by enforcing a consistent 20-year term from the filing date and any permissible extensions like supplementary protection certificates uniformly. The EPO's role as registrar centralizes this step, streamlining administration while the underlying patent remains governed by EPC provisions on opposition (Article 99) and limitation/revocation (Articles 105a and 105). Unitary patents leverage the EPC's framework covering 39 contracting states but confine unitary effect to EU participants—currently 18 states as of , with potential for expansion—creating a deliberate : enhanced uniformity and cost efficiency in the opt-in zone at the expense of automatic extension to non-participating EPC states like or non-EU members such as . This design maintains decentralized national enforcement outside the unitary territory unless opted into the system separately. By the end of 2024, the EPO had registered 45,081 unitary patents, reflecting swift uptake following the system's launch in June 2023, with over 28,000 requests processed in that inaugural full year alone.

Unified Patent Court Establishment

The Agreement on a was concluded on 19 February 2013 among 24 member states and three states parties not belonging to the , establishing a common judicial framework for patent disputes. required or accession by at least 13 states, including , , , and the , designated to host central divisions; this threshold was met with Germany's deposit of instruments on 17 February 2023, following resolution of a domestic constitutional that had delayed its participation since an initial 2017 deposit. This triggered a three-month period under Article 89 of the UPCA, culminating in operational commencement on 1 June 2023 with 17 contracting member states initially participating. The UPC exercises exclusive jurisdiction over unitary patents and European patents with unitary effect for civil and commercial matters relating to infringement and non-infringement, as well as supplementary protective certificates, counterclaims for , and declarations of invalidity or non-infringement; traditional European patents may also fall under its purview if proprietors or applicants do not . This centralized competence supplants parallel national proceedings in participating states, addressing empirical inefficiencies such as duplicative litigation costs and divergent judicial outcomes that previously incentivized forum-shopping by rights holders and challengers. Structurally, the UPC comprises a Court of First Instance—divided into a Central Division (seated in with sections in for mechanical engineering, physics, and electricity-related patents, and in since 1 July 2024 for pharmaceutical and chemical patents, assuming responsibilities originally assigned to a section after the United Kingdom's non-participation post-Brexit)—local divisions in individual contracting states, and regional divisions spanning multiple states; a based in ; and a Registry handling administrative functions. Operations are funded principally through court fees, including fixed provisional amounts (e.g., €11,000 for infringement actions) and value-based components scaled to claim amounts, with mechanisms for fee recovery by prevailing parties and reductions for small entities, minimizing ongoing fiscal burdens on contracting states beyond infrastructure setup.

Operational Mechanics

Granting and Registration Process

The granting of a unitary patent follows the standard (EPC) procedure, whereby the (EPO) examines and grants a European patent application after substantive review, opposition periods if applicable, and publication of the mention of grant in the European Patent Bulletin. Upon grant, the patent proprietor has one month from the publication date to file a request for unitary effect with the EPO, specifying the desire for uniform protection across participating member states. This request must confirm that the granted claims are identical for all relevant states and meet eligibility criteria, including ratification or accession by at least the required threshold of states (initially 13 contracting states to the Agreement, expanded to 18 as of 1 September 2024). If the EPO verifies compliance, it registers the unitary effect in the central Register for Unitary Patent Protection, rendering the European patent a unitary patent effective retroactively from the original grant date. This registration automatically extends protection uniformly to all participating member states at that time, without separate national validations, streamlining post-grant administration compared to classical European patent bundles requiring individual state-by-state procedures. The unitary effect is irrevocable once registered, binding the proprietor to uniform renewal, lapse, and enforcement across the territory, though proprietors of non-unitary European patents may file opt-outs from jurisdiction prior to grant to retain national court handling. Empirical data indicate rapid adoption, with the EPO registering over 48,000 unitary patents by February 2025, reflecting a surge in where unitary effect was requested for 25.6% of all granted European patents (over 28,000 requests total). Uptake among EPO member states reached 36.5% of eligible EU-directed grants, attributable to the reduced administrative burden versus fragmented national validations under the prior system.

Translation Obligations and Linguistic Safeguards

During the transitional period, which began on 1 June 2023 and lasts at least six years (extendable to 12 years or until high-quality machine translation covers all EU official languages), proprietors requesting unitary effect for a European patent granted in English, French, or German must file a full translation of the entire patent specification into one other official EU language of their choice. This single central translation, submitted to the EPO alongside the request, serves solely for informational purposes and carries no legal effect on patent validity or scope. If the chosen language is Croatian or Irish—official EU languages not among the EPO's working languages—the translation must encompass the full text, ensuring accessibility in those tongues where selected, though neither Croatia nor Ireland currently participates in the unitary patent system as of October 2025. Post-transitional, no translations are required for registration, with the EPO providing machine-generated full-text translations into all EU languages via its website for public access. Linguistic safeguards protect national interests and litigants by mandating that, in infringement disputes before national courts or the Unified Patent Court, if the patent's language differs from the Member State's official language, the proprietor must supply a full translation of any disputed claims into that language upon judicial request; failure to do so limits available remedies, such as injunctions or damages, until compliance. The patent specification remains published in the grant language, with claims also available in the other two EPO official languages, and machine-readable formats facilitate broader comprehension without imposing ongoing translation burdens on proprietors. This framework, informed by prior failures of community patent initiatives stalled by exhaustive multilingual demands, prioritizes efficient enforcement through centralized EPO resources over decentralized full-country translations, enabling verifiable cost reductions while maintaining enforceability. In contrast to classical European patent bundles, where validation across multiple states requires separate full or partial translations into each (e.g., complete specifications in or ), the unitary system's single transitional translation yields estimated savings of 50-70% in translation expenses for coverage spanning 17-24 participating states, depending on portfolio breadth and language choices. These efficiencies stem from forgoing per-state filings, redirecting resources toward rather than linguistic equity mandates that historically undermined pan-European patent .

Territorial Extent and State Participation

The unitary patent provides uniform protection across the territories of the 18 member states participating in the (UPC) system as of October 2025: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and . These states have ratified the UPC Agreement, enabling the unitary effect to apply automatically upon registration at the (EPO) for European patents granted after the system's on June 1, 2023. The territorial scope for each unitary patent is recorded in the EPO's Register for unitary patent protection, reflecting the participating states at the time of grant. Protection does not extend to the nine non-participating EU member states—, , , , , , , and others awaiting ratification—nor to non-EU members of the (EPC), such as , , , and the , which withdrew participation post-Brexit. Applicants seeking coverage in non-participating territories must pursue separate national validations of the underlying European patent. While unitary effect is mandatory across all current participating states once requested, applicants may elect not to request it, opting instead for classical national designations in selected UPC states; such bundles remain subject to UPC unless explicitly opted out. Opt-out provisions apply exclusively to traditional European patents and pending applications predating the UPC's full operation, allowing proprietors to exclude them from UPC and retain national handling; unitary patents, by , cannot be and are inherently under UPC competence. Initially, over 500,000 such were filed during the sunrise period starting , 2023, reflecting proprietors' caution amid the system's novelty, though withdrawals remain possible until one month before the transitional period's end in 2030. In participating states with overseas territories, unitary effect applies to metropolitan areas and integral regions but excludes certain dependent territories to accommodate local legal frameworks, such as Denmark's and , the Netherlands' and , and France's overseas collectivities like and ; however, France's overseas departments including are encompassed. This delineation preserves variances in non-core territories while ensuring cohesion in core EU economic zones.

Economic and Practical Dimensions

Fee Structures and Renewal Mechanisms

The request for unitary effect and subsequent registration of a Unitary Patent following the grant of a European patent incur no fees at the (EPO). Annual renewal fees to maintain a Unitary Patent in force are paid centrally to the in euros, covering the entire territory of effect without any additional national supplements or per-state payments. This unified payment structure applies uniform deadlines and procedures, streamlining maintenance compared to the fragmented national renewals required for classically validated European patents. Renewal fee levels are fixed annually and calculated as the sum of the national renewal fees in the four EPO contracting states with the highest aggregate renewal fee revenues—originally , , , and the —adjusted to reflect broad coverage across participating states. Fees commence from the second year after the filing date of the underlying European patent application and escalate progressively; as of the latest schedule effective through 2025 with no inflationary adjustments, the cumulative amount over the first ten years—the typical lifespan of a European patent—totals less than €5,000. Litigation fees before the (UPC), which exercises centralized jurisdiction over Unitary Patents, comprise a fixed fee per action (e.g., €11,000 for infringement suits as established at launch) plus a value-based component for cases valued above €500,000, with the latter scaled proportionally to dispute value up to a cap. These fees, unchanged in structure for 2025, are supplemented by recoverable attorney and costs, determined by the court's based on case complexity and party conduct.

Comparative Cost Analysis

The unitary patent provides quantifiable cost advantages over traditional national validations of a European patent primarily for applicants seeking coverage in multiple participating member states, with the (EPO) estimating it to be less expensive than validating and maintaining a European patent in four participating states over comparable periods. This stems from eliminating per-country validation fees, translation requirements beyond a single of the EPO, and fragmented agent involvement, replacing them with a single registration process and unified renewal fees paid to the EPO. Empirical analyses indicate a point around four to five states, beyond which the unitary option yields net savings due to in administrative and costs. For broader territorial scopes, such as the current 18 participating states (as of September 2024, following Ireland's accession), the unitary patent equates to the cost of national bundles covering fewer states—often 10 or more—yielding savings of up to 31% in total lifecycle costs (grant through renewal) compared to equivalent national validations, per EPO modeling that aggregates validation, , and expenses. These efficiencies contributed to a surge in unitary patent registrations in 2024, exceeding EPO projections in the first year of operation (post-June 2023 launch), particularly in technology sectors like and ICT where multi-state is routine. Renewal fees, structured progressively to reflect coverage breadth (e.g., weighted toward larger economies like and ), further amplify savings for extensive protection but impose a fixed overhead across all participating states, irrespective of the patentee's market focus. While small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) qualify for EPO fee (e.g., 30% on filing and search for qualifying entities), the unitary system's all-or-nothing territorial bundle disadvantages those prioritizing 1-3 states, where targeted national validations remain cheaper by avoiding surplus renewals in low-value markets. Large multinational firms, conversely, capture disproportionate benefits from the model's scalability, as their routine validations across 5+ states—common in global tech portfolios—avoid redundant per-country translations (often €5,000-€10,000 each) and agent fees, enhancing net incentives for without relying on subsidies. This structure counters claims of universal accessibility, as upfront translation deterrence persists for SMEs despite overall , with showing lower SME uptake relative to large applicants in early 2024 registrations.

Implications for Patent Holders and Innovation

The Unitary Patent system enables holders to obtain uniform protection across up to 18 participating member states through a single registration process following EPO grant, reducing administrative burdens and validation costs compared to traditional national designations. This streamlined approach facilitates broader enforcement, allowing holders to pursue infringement actions via the (UPC) in a single proceeding rather than multiple national courts, which deters opportunistic infringement by raising the effective cost for violators across a large unified market. Empirical data from the EPO's Patent Index 2024 indicate sustained activity, with European patent applications holding steady at high levels despite a slight overall decline of 0.1% to 199,264 filings, while unitary effect requests surged to over 28,000—representing 25.6% of granted European patents and a 53% increase from 2023—suggesting enhanced attractiveness for R&D investment in scalable technologies. For large corporations, the system's scale advantages amplify returns on R&D by enabling cost-efficient coverage of the EU's internal market, where renewal fees are structured progressively to favor extensive territorial scope, potentially increasing net IP value through simplified maintenance and stronger deterrent effects against copyists. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) benefit from lowered entry barriers, as the unitary option eliminates per-country and validation expenses, making pan-European viable for firms previously deterred by fragmented costs; for instance, SMEs can access up to 60% in UPC proceedings, fostering deployment without proportional administrative overhead. These dynamics evidence a net rise in IP's economic utility, countering narratives of against corporate scale by demonstrating verifiable uptake that correlates with robust R&D persistence amid global economic pressures. However, the centralized nature introduces risks of monopoly power concentration, as a successful UPC invalidation could nullify protection across all participating states simultaneously, amplifying vulnerability for holders reliant on broad coverage and potentially chilling risk-averse R&D in contested fields. Looking ahead, sustained unitary growth—driven by sectors like AI and batteries—positions the for competitive parity with fragmented systems in the and , where filing trends show Europe's 0.3% domestic application rise outpacing non-European declines, though long-term R&D impacts hinge on empirical validation beyond initial adoption.

Controversies and Critiques

Benefits for Market Efficiency and Large Enterprises

The Unitary Patent system enhances market efficiency by enabling a single right to cover up to 18 participating member states, eliminating the need for separate national validations and reducing administrative fragmentation that previously hindered cross-border . This unified approach, operational since June 1, 2023, allows patent holders to pursue infringement actions or revocations through the centralized (UPC), which had processed 946 cases by June 30, 2025, thereby streamlining dispute resolution and minimizing duplicative proceedings across jurisdictions. Such centralization accelerates timelines compared to parallel national litigations, fostering predictable legal outcomes that support efficient market transactions in patented technologies. By February 2025, the (EPO) had registered over 48,000 unitary patents, indicating robust uptake that simplifies protection for innovations with broad European market applicability and boosts cross-border by lowering barriers to . Large enterprises, which often maintain extensive patent portfolios, particularly benefit from these efficiencies, as the system's single renewal fee—scaled progressively based on patent scope—and avoidance of per-country translation requirements yield significant cost savings at scale, with unitary requests comprising 25.6% of all EPO-granted European patents in 2024, totaling over 28,000. This is especially pronounced in high-innovation fields like computer technology, where EPO data for 2024 show elevated uptake rates, reflecting causal advantages for firms deploying scalable digital innovations across unified markets. The framework promotes by reinforcing strong, territorially extensive rights that incentivize R&D in IP-intensive sectors, which generated €6.4 trillion or 47% of GDP during 2017-2019 through heightened productivity and trade surpluses. Harmonized protection under the unitary system counters inefficiencies from disparate national regimes, potentially increasing trade and in high-tech areas by up to 2% and 15%, respectively, as projected in analyses of system unification, thereby enabling large enterprises to allocate resources more effectively toward value-creating rather than jurisdictional .

Drawbacks for SMEs, National Sovereignty, and Access to Justice

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) encounter structural drawbacks in the unitary patent system stemming from its inflexible territorial scope and associated costs, particularly for inventions with limited geographic applicability. Renewal fees for a unitary patent are calculated on a scale reflecting coverage across all participating states—18 as of October 2024—without the option to selectively surrender protection in individual countries, unlike classical European patents where proprietors can tailor validations to specific markets to control expenses. This all-encompassing approach can impose undue financial strain on SMEs focused on regional or niche markets, as fees accumulate irrespective of actual commercial exploitation, with 20-year cumulative renewals exceeding those for limited validations in fewer states. Although micro- and small enterprises qualify for a 40% reduction on UPC litigation fees, the absence of proportional scaling for narrow-scope patents relative to portfolio size leads critics to highlight a deterrence effect, where SMEs weigh the system's uniformity against the precision of national filings. Empirical adoption patterns underscore this tension: while SMEs filed over 30% of unitary patents among European applicants in 2024, representing a notable share, the overall uptake rate of 25.6% for grants masks lower relative engagement from the smallest entities, which often prioritize cost containment over expansive coverage. Analyses indicate that for patents requiring protection in only 1–3 states, classical routes remain economically preferable, amplifying the unitary system's opportunity costs for resource-constrained innovators. The Unified Patent Court's (UPC) supranational framework erodes national sovereignty by vesting authority in a centralized body whose decisions preempt domestic judicial processes across participating territories, thereby curtailing states' autonomy in aligned with local priorities. This delegation risks fostering decisions insulated from national accountability mechanisms, as UPC panels apply uniform standards that may overlook variances in economic conditions or legal precedents among member states. from certain members prior to highlighted fears of fragmented outcomes, where the system's irrevocability amplifies the stakes of any supranational misjudgment without recourse to sovereign overrides. Access to under the UPC is hindered by procedural intricacies, including the regime's strict timelines and evidentiary demands, which impose administrative burdens disproportionate to SMEs' capacities and may inadvertently expose opted-in patents to cross-border without tailored national safeguards. Early caseloads reveal persistent forum-shopping dynamics, with claimants selecting divisions based on linguistic or jurisprudential advantages—such as initiating in German-speaking locales for perceived expertise—despite mandates to use the patent's grant language to mitigate disadvantages. Language constraints, limited to English, French, and German, exacerbate barriers for parties from non-proficient jurisdictions, elevating and representation costs in appeals involving divergent standards, as seen in 2024–2025 rulings on scopes across and biotech disputes. These elements collectively risk uneven , where centralized efficiency trades against equitable access for smaller actors navigating a multilingual, multi-division apparatus.

Brexit's Disruptive Effects and Non-Participation Issues

The United Kingdom's through precipitated its exit from the (UPC) and Unitary Patent systems, as participation in a court applying law and subject to the Court of Justice of the (CJEU) was deemed incompatible with post- sovereignty goals. The had ratified the UPC Agreement in 2013, but following the 2016 , the confirmed intent to join despite , only to reverse course by July 2017, formally notifying withdrawal in 2018. This decision necessitated the relocation of the planned seat of the UPC's Central Division, originally designated for handling patents in fields like and life sciences; in June 2023, the UPC Administrative Committee reassigned this section to , Italy, alongside seats in and , contributing to delays in the system's operational launch until June 2023. Post-, European patents validated in the operate outside the Unitary Patent framework, requiring separate national designations and maintenance, which fragments enforcement and increases administrative burdens for patent holders seeking pan-European coverage including the . Non-participation by certain member states, notably and , further undermines the uniformity of the Unitary Patent system, reflecting tensions between supranational integration and national sovereignty. opted out primarily due to linguistic inequities, as UPC proceedings are conducted in English, French, or German—none of which is Spanish—potentially disadvantaging Spanish litigants and firms, alongside concerns over high participation costs and litigation uncertainties exacerbated by and prior German constitutional challenges. similarly declined , citing risks to national interests from the system's automatic territorial extension across participating states without flexibility, which could impose undifferentiated obligations on smaller economies and limit policy autonomy in patent matters. These refusals, while not blocking the system's (which required by 13 states including , , and ), exclude approximately 12% of the population from unitary effect, compelling separate national validations in those jurisdictions and perpetuating a patchwork of patent protections. Brexit and these non-participations have causally disrupted the anticipated seamless coverage of the Unitary Patent, evidenced by increased fragmentation costs and shifts in filing behaviors; UK-based applicants face dual validation requirements for EU and UK protection, contributing to observed declines in collaborative patent outputs post-2016 referendum, with studies documenting reduced numbers and quality of UK-involved European patent applications amid heightened geopolitical uncertainty. This non-uniformity diminishes the system's value for multinational innovators, as incomplete territorial scope—spanning 18 EU states as of 2023 but excluding the UK, Spain, Poland, and others—necessitates hybrid strategies blending unitary effects with national filings, thereby elevating renewal fees and enforcement complexities without the full efficiency gains promised by broader adoption.

Empirical Performance and Outlook

The (EPO) received 28,125 requests for unitary effect in 2024, representing a 25.6% uptake rate among granted European patents and marking a 53% increase from the 17.5% rate in 2023. Unitary effect was granted for 28,024 of these requests in 2024. By February 2025, the cumulative total of registered unitary patents exceeded 48,000 since the system's launch on June 1, 2023. As of October 15, 2025, the EPO had processed 70,222 requests for unitary effect. Adoption trends indicate accelerating growth, with monthly requests rising from under 1,000 in late 2022 preparatory phases to around 2,000 by mid-2023 and sustaining high volumes thereafter, driven by increased awareness following system implementation and procedural refinements. The uptake rate's progression from 17.5% in 2023 to 25.6% in 2024 reflects broader integration into patent strategies, particularly as applicants adapted to the single-request mechanism covering up to 18 participating EU states (expanding with further ratifications). Sector breakdowns show disproportionate adoption in technology-intensive fields, with leading filings and exhibiting the strongest growth in unitary requests; electrical machinery saw an 8.9% rise in related applications in 2024, while (MedTech) accounted for a notable share of early registrations exceeding expectations. Requests originate predominantly from applicants in high-filing EPO countries such as and , where participation aligns with dense ecosystems, contrasting with lower volumes from peripheral or non-central participating states. This distribution underscores uneven initial penetration, with core economies driving over half of total requests through 2025.

Unified Patent Court Caseload and Outcomes

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has experienced rapid caseload expansion since its operational start on 1 June 2023. By the end of 2024, the court had received 633 actions, predominantly infringement proceedings. This figure grew to 946 cases by 30 June 2025, reflecting increased filings across local and central divisions. Infringement actions continued to dominate, comprising the bulk of cases, with and non-infringement claims forming smaller shares as per the court's 2024 annual report. Key outcomes in 2025 highlighted the UPC's jurisdictional reach and procedural rigor. The court affirmed its "long-arm" authority in multiple rulings, including an October 2025 decision by the Local Division granting a permanent against infringement extending to non-UPCA states and non-EU territories domiciled defendants. Similarly, a ruling in the same month imposed cross-border relief covering 14 countries, rejecting invalidity defenses and underscoring enforcement beyond UPC territories for resident parties. These decisions built on earlier 2025 precedents extending s to the and , demonstrating the court's willingness to apply remedies extraterritorially when infringement ties to UPC states. Preliminary injunction (PI) proceedings in 2025 marked empirical milestones, with the Court of Appeal imposing stricter standards on urgency and validity assessments compared to initial cases. A September 2025 ruling granted the first PI in the pharmaceutical sector, reversing prior denials and emphasizing balanced evidence thresholds absent from UPC precedents. Appeal trends revealed scrutiny of temporal limits, including service timelines and provisional measure durations, contributing to higher dismissal rates for applications. Operational enhancements supported caseload handling, including the full rollout of the upgraded Case Management System (CMS) on 23 September 2025 following a phased transition and system freeze from 18 to 23 September. Initial 2024-2025 data from the annual report indicate efficiency improvements in case processing times relative to fragmented national systems, though variances across divisions persist and enforcement execution shows inconsistent speeds pending further standardization.

Projections and Unresolved Challenges

The introduction of dedicated Unitary Patent Guidelines by the , effective April 1, 2025, clarifies procedures for requesting and maintaining unitary effect, including registration and post-grant formalities, which is expected to reduce administrative hurdles and encourage broader uptake among applicants. These updates build on the system's initial momentum, with projections for expansion to additional member states beyond the current 18 participants, potentially reaching up to 25 as holdouts like Poland and weigh ratification amid demonstrated efficiency gains. Empirical trends from the EPO's Patent Index underscore sustained demand, with unitary patent requests maintaining high levels comparable to 2023-2024 peaks and a surge in filings during early 2025, reflecting innovators' preference for simplified multi-country coverage over fragmented national validations. Despite these advancements, unresolved challenges threaten long-term consolidation. Brexit's exclusion of the from the unitary effect and jurisdiction creates a persistent void, forcing applicants to pursue separate UK validations and undermining the system's aim for seamless European protection, as the UK's non-participation—driven by sovereignty priorities post-2016—remains unlikely to reverse without policy shifts. Lingering opt-outs from UPC competence, permissible during the transitional period ending in 2026, allow patent holders to preserve national litigation options, but this fragments enforcement and sustains critiques of centralized authority eroding member state control, potentially deterring full adoption if amplified by nationalist sentiments in non-joiner states. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face adaptation barriers, including heightened vulnerability to UPC-wide revocations that could nullify protection across participating states in a single proceeding, contrasting with national courts' more localized risk profiles; while SME uptake has exceeded initial expectations, larger firms' caution signals uneven benefits, with cost structures and litigation centralization risking disproportionate burdens on resource-constrained innovators. The gradual phase-out of full requirements—initially mandatory for 12 years before shifting to declarations of enforceability—poses ongoing logistical hurdles for non-traditional users, delaying true uniformity and exposing causal dependencies on EPO's of linguistic presumptions, which empirical in registration have yet to fully resolve. If sovereignty-related critiques gain traction amid these frictions, momentum could stall, as evidenced by slower large-enterprise engagement and persistent non-ratifications, prioritizing verifiable institutional risks over aspirational EU integration narratives.

References

  1. https://www.epo.org/en/applying/european/unitary/unitary-patent
  2. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/industry/strategy/intellectual-property/patent-protection-eu/unitary-patent-system_en
  3. https://www.mewburn.com/law-practice-library/the-eu-unitary-patent-and-the-unified-patent-court-explained
  4. https://abg-ip.com/unitary-patent-german-constitutional-court/
  5. https://www.frkelly.com/library/first-year-unitary-patent-and-unified-patent-court-successful-start
  6. https://harrityllp.com/inside-the-european-patent-revolution/
  7. https://www.mwe.com/insights/legal-lens-on-the-unified-patent-court-october-2024/
  8. https://www.epo.org/en/applying/european/unitary/unitary-patent/start
  9. https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/patent-blog/unified-patent-court-conflicting-decisions-arent-something-of-the-past/
  10. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32012R1257
  11. https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guidelines-up/2025/section_2_6.html
  12. https://link.epo.org/web/legal/guidelines-up/en-up-guidelines-2025-pre-publication.pdf
  13. https://www.epo.org/en/service-support/faq/law-practice/unitary-patent
  14. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52023PC0222
  15. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/memo_12_970
  16. https://www.marks-clerk.com/insights/latest-insights/102juyh-cost-comparison-unitary-patent-classic-european-patents/
  17. https://link.epo.org/web/applying/european/en-unitary-patent-simplified-broader-patent-protection-lower-cost.pdf
  18. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32012R1257
  19. https://www.epo.org/en/legal/up-upc/2022/eu20121257_7.html
  20. https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/faq/opt-out
  21. https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/patent-blog/upc-opt-outs-statistics-and-trends-one-month-in/
  22. https://www.juve-patent.com/legal-commentary/from-seed-to-tree-a-timeline-of-the-upc/
  23. https://cjel.law.columbia.edu/print/2001/from-the-european-patent-to-a-community-patent/
  24. https://ladas.com/education-center/eu-unitary-patent-and-patent-court-2/
  25. https://ifia.com/eu-patent/
  26. https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3391&context=til
  27. https://sciencebusiness.net/news/74052/EU-revives-push-for-common-patent-policy
  28. https://www.april.org/en/introduction-european-parliaments-works-concerning-enhanced-cooperation-unitary-patent
  29. https://www.epo.org/en/legal/official-journal/1991/12/p623.html
  30. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:41989A0695%2801%29:EN:HTML
  31. https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1121&context=lucilr
  32. https://academic.oup.com/grurint/article/70/7/662/6154687
  33. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1063&context=iplj
  34. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52000PC0412
  35. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmeuleg/1799/179904.htm
  36. https://www.epo.org/en/legal/official-journal/2003/05/p218.html
  37. https://www.businesseurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/2002-03438-E-04a-1.pdf
  38. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03257361
  39. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w13426/w13426.pdf
  40. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/community-patent.html
  41. https://sciencebusiness.net/news/75894/EU-leaders-in-deadlock-over-European-patent
  42. https://link.epo.org/web/patents_trade_fdi_en.pdf
  43. https://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st06/st06524.en11.pdf
  44. https://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/pages/publication15479_en.pdf
  45. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0287:FIN:en:PDF
  46. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32011D0167
  47. https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2011/12/live-update-competitiveness-council.html
  48. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2013:175:0001:0040:En:PDF
  49. https://www.fieldfisher.com/en/insights/historic-moment-as-unified-patent-court-agreement-is-signed
  50. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2012/1257/oj/eng
  51. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2012/1260/oj/eng
  52. https://www.epo.org/en/service-support/faq/law-practice/unitary-patent/requesting-unitary-patent/can-i-delay-my-request
  53. https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc/2020/a63.html
  54. https://link.epo.org/web/documentation/documentation/en-sc-25-4.pdf
  55. https://www.epo.org/en/news-events/press-centre/press-release/2025/1352247
  56. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/details/934
  57. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/treaties-agreements/agreement/?id=2013001
  58. https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/news/germany-ratifies-agreement-unified-patent-court
  59. https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en
  60. https://www.epo.org/en/applying/european/unitary
  61. https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/court/locations
  62. https://www.epo.org/en/service-support/faq/law-practice/unified-patent-court/what-structure-unified-patent-court
  63. https://www.fr.com/pages/unitary-patent-faq/
  64. https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/registry/court-fees
  65. https://www.epo.org/en/service-support/faq/law-practice/unitary-patent/requesting-unitary-patent/when-can-i-file-request
  66. https://www.franksco.com/media/ijtgyld1/earlyrequestsforunitarypatent.pdf
  67. https://www.mewburn.com/news-insights/opting-out-from-the-upc-when-to-opt-out-a-pending-european-patent-application
  68. https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/03/27/epo-patent-index-2024-shows-increase-computer-technology-inventions-unitary-patent-requests/id=187629/
  69. https://www.epo.org/en/applying/european/unitary/unitary-patent/compensation
  70. https://www.epo.org/en/legal/up-upc/2022/eu20121257.html
  71. https://www.epo.org/en/service-support/faq/law-practice/unitary-patent/translations/do-i-need-file-translation-european
  72. https://www.epo.org/en/legal/up-upc/2022/eu20121260_3.html
  73. https://www.boult.com/bulletin/unitary-patent-up-translation-requirements/
  74. https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/organisation/upc-member-states
  75. https://www.epo.org/en/service-support/faq/law-practice/unitary-patent/unified-patent-court/what-are-arrangements
  76. https://www.epo.org/en/legal/national-measures-up/2022/iv/fr.html
  77. https://www.epo.org/en/applying/european/unitary/unitary-patent/cost
  78. https://ip-coster.com/IPGuides/unitary-patent
  79. https://www.epo.org/en/service-support/faq/law-practice/unitary-patent/costs-unitary-patent-and-reductions-small-entities
  80. https://www.maucherjenkins.com/about-ip/unitary-patent-frequently-asked-questions
  81. https://www.epo.org/en/service-support/faq/law-practice/unitary-patent/costs-unitary-patent-and-reductions-small-1
  82. https://forresters-ip.com/no-epo-fee-increases-in-2025/
  83. https://www.frkelly.com/library/unified-patent-court-costs
  84. https://www.juve-patent.com/legal-commentary/upc-to-hire-multiple-new-judges-in-2025/
  85. https://www.epo.org/en/service-support/faq/law-practice/unitary-patent/costs-unitary-patent-and-reductions-small-3
  86. https://www.lplegal.com/content/new-european-patent-system/
  87. https://www.epo.org/en/news-events/press-centre/press-release/2024/1158768
  88. https://files.simmons-simmons.com/api/get-asset/UPC_The_Economics_of_UPs_updated_May_2017_366501611.pdf?id=blt0c3e898d075b79a9
  89. https://www.rws.com/blog/pros-and-cons-unitary-patent/
  90. https://www.lexisnexisip.com/resources/unraveling-the-unitary-patent-system-overview-and-whats-ahead/
  91. https://www.epo.org/en/about-us/statistics/patent-index-2024
  92. https://www.epo.org/en/news-events/press-centre/press-release/2025/1360274
  93. https://katzarov.com/porfolio-item/unitary-patent/
  94. https://sciencebusiness.net/news/Patents/ecosystem-innovators-weigh-pros-and-cons-europes-unitary-patent
  95. https://www.twobirds.com/en/patenthub/shared/insights/2023/global/upc-blog-series-part-4-the-upc-and-up-considerations-for-smes
  96. https://www.epo.org/en/news-events/news/european-innovation-remains-robust-demand-patents-sustained-high-level
  97. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359644622003816
  98. https://english.cnipa.gov.cn/transfer/news/internationalipinformation/1097826.htm
  99. https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/news/case-load-court-start-operation-june-2023-update-30-june-2025
  100. https://www.epo.org/en/news-events/press-centre/press-release/2022/452248
  101. https://www.epo.org/en/service-support/faq/law-practice/unitary-patent/costs-unitary-patent-and-reductions-small-6
  102. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_23_3005
  103. https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2024/11/the-unified-patent-court-also-an-attractive-jurisdiction-for-smes
  104. https://www.pitch.law/knowledge-base/unitary-patent
  105. https://ttconsultants.com/a-year-in-review-how-the-unified-patent-court-is-shaping-europes-patent-landscape/
  106. https://script-ed.org/article/european-unified-patent-court-assessment-implications-federalisation-patent-system-europe/
  107. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-021-01123-0
  108. https://www.dyoung.com/en/knowledgebank/articles/upc-1year-forum-shopping
  109. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f528cb03-9adb-4e26-9941-80d7627e667a
  110. https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/patent-blog/du-hast-but-not-so-fast-lessons-from-two-years-of-upc-appeals/
  111. https://www.dyoung.com/en/knowledgebank/articles/upc-1year-language-proceedings
  112. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=mtlr
  113. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2020/649575/IPOL_ATA%282020%29649575_EN.pdf
  114. https://script-ed.org/article/brexit-and-the-unitary-patent-package-a-further-compromised-future/
  115. https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/upc_documents/decision-d_ac_03_26062023_-amendment-upca.pdf
  116. https://www.hgf.com/brexit/brexit-upc/
  117. https://freemindtronic.com/unitary-patent-system-eu-countries/
  118. https://www.bristowsupc.com/news/spanish-government-provides-further-reasons-for-not-joining-unitary-patent-and-upc-system/
  119. https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/patent-blog/a-new-european-patent-landscape-2-scope-of-the-unitary-patent-system/
  120. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1075425324000838
  121. https://sheffield.ac.uk/media/89841/download?attachment
  122. https://www.potterclarkson.com/insights/what-is-a-unitary-patent/
  123. https://www.juve-patent.com/people-and-business/epo-statistics-show-surge-in-unitary-patents/
  124. https://www.aippi.org/news/registering-unitary-effect-of-european-patents-what-can-go-wrong/
  125. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e12f73fa-0a78-486b-80ab-2d788815844f
  126. https://www.marks-clerk.com/insights/latest-insights/102kfos-unitary-patents-medtech-leads-the-way/
  127. https://www.vo.eu/news/an-update-on-the-unitary-patent-system/
  128. https://www.iplawwatch.com/2025/03/10/unified-patent-court-publishes-first-annual-report/
  129. https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/news/case-load-court-start-operation-june-2023-update-30-june-2025
  130. https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/sites/default/files/upc_documents/UPC_AR_2024_HD_digital_version_double_page_compressed.pdf
  131. https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/ip/2025-10/upc-grants-permanent-long-arm-injunction
  132. https://www.managingip.com/article/2fhotigolt83u5c09tz40/patents/upc-update-14-country-long-arm-injunction-presidium-elections
  133. https://www.fieldfisher.com/en/services/intellectual-property/intellectual-property-blog/beyond-borders-upc-asserts-long-arm-jurisdiction-o
  134. https://www.mwe.com/insights/legal-lens-unified-patent-court-q2-2025/
  135. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/historic-upc-court-of-appeal-decision-7266760/
  136. https://www.hoyngrokhmonegier.com/news-insights/upc-unfiltered-by-willem-hoyng-upc-decisions-week-42-2025/
  137. https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/news/full-cms-functionalities-available-23-september-2025
  138. https://natlawreview.com/article/unified-patent-court-publishes-first-annual-report
  139. https://www.boult.com/bulletin/new-epo-and-unitary-patent-guidelines-come-into-force/
  140. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-046-4539?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  141. https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/oblb/blog-post/2025/07/ten-reasons-why-uk-should-join-europes-unified-patent-court
  142. https://www.mewburn.com/news-insights/upc-weekly-opting-out-from-the-upc-the-who-the-when-and-the-why
  143. https://sciencebusiness.net/news/smes/universities-and-smes-embrace-europes-unitary-patent
  144. https://www.shandp.com/will-epo-unitary-patent-price-smes-out-of-the-ip-market/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.