Unitary Patent: Stop talking, start planning

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Unitary Patent: Stop talking, start planning

Today is a turning-point for patents in Europe. The Court of Justice of the EU has ruled on Spain’s challenge to the Unitary Patent Regulations, and we need to start looking forward to how the new system will work in practice

CJEU judges

As we reported this morning, the Grand Panel of the Court (pictured right) dismissed every aspect of Spain’s dual challenge, the second time the country has queried the Unitary Patent plan. That must remove any remaining uncertainties over the legal basis of the EU scheme, even if it doesn’t (yet) persuade the Spanish government to sign up.

The opponents of the proposed system, led by the Spanish government, had some strong and sincerely held arguments against it. The Court has firmly, clearly and finally rejected these, as the Advocate General did last year.

No doubt some critics will remain unpersuaded by its judgments, will continue to criticise the proposed system and may even seek further reviews at the European Court of Human Rights.

But surely now is the time for everyone to take a deep breath and say: the CJEU has clearly spoken, much of the work is underway and patent applicants (and third parties) need certainty. Whatever your personal views about the merits of what is proposed, it is time to put them aside and try to make the system work in practice.

Above all that means: How much will it cost? When will it come into effect? And should I use the system for some or all of my patents?

EU flag

We now need to see some more activity from governments and the EPO to clarify renewal, opt-out and court fees, the final rules of procedure and judicial appointments. The recent proposals on fees, while not as low as most users would like, are at least a starting point, and we understand that there may be further announcements on the other fees within the next week.

I know from speaking to in-house counsel that news on costs cannot come soon enough: many are already working on budgets that could be affected by the Unitary Patent (for example, the opt-out fees) and need to make spending decisions.

Patent practitioners in Europe also have a duty to their clients, and to the public at large, to make the system work as efficiently and fairly as possible. That includes building expertise, engaging in consultations and promoting understanding.

We’ve had several years or debate about the advantages and shortfalls of the Unitary Patent and UPC and what is proposed certainly does not please everybody. But the time for arguing is now over, and the time for planning how to make it work in practice work must begin in earnest.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
Gift this article