Full steam ahead for Unitary Patent and UPC

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

Full steam ahead for Unitary Patent and UPC

CJEU judges

The Court of Justice of the EU has emphatically dismissed two challenges to the Regulations establishing the Unitary Patent filed by the Spanish government

CJEU judges

The Court’s two judgments, published today, are C-146/13 and C-147/13. They were both given by a Grand Panel of 13 judges.

The former deals with Spain’s application to annul EU Regulation 1257/2012, which implements enhanced cooperation to create a Unitary Patent, while the latter covers EU Regulation 1260/2012, which concerns the applicable translation arrangements (specifically a language regime based on English, French and German).

Spain is one of the few EU member states not participating in the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court system, and this is the second time it has challenged the legitimacy of the proposals at the CJEU.

The Court dismissed all of Spain’s seven pleas in case C-146/13 and all five pleas in C-147/13.

Legal basis of Unitary Patent

Spain’s arguments against Regulation 1257/2012 were essentially that it infringed the values of the rule of law, lacked legal basis, was a misuse of powers, infringed Article 291(2) TFEU or the principles stated in the 1958 case Meroni v High Authority, infringed the same principles by delegating administrative tasks to the EPO and infringed “the principles of autonomy and uniform application of EU law”.

Rejecting all these pleas, the Court said “the unitary patent protection … is apt to prevent divergences in terms of patent protection in the participating Member States and, accordingly, provides uniform protection within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 118 TFEU”.

Regarding the EPO tasks, it said: “Given that … the EU legislature did not delegate any implementing powers which are exclusively its own under EU law to the participating Member States or the EPO, the principles laid down by the Court in the judgment in Meroni v High Authority … cannot apply.”

Translation arrangements

"[T]he language arrangements established by the contested regulation are capable of making access to the EPUE and the patent system as a whole easier, less costly and legally more secure."

Spain argued that Regulation 1260/2012 infringed the principle of non-discrimination on the ground of language, infringed the Meroni principles, lacked legal basis, infringed the principle of legal certainty and infringed the principle of the autonomy of EU law.

Rejecting all these please, the Court noted that the rules of the existing European patent system “affect adversely the capacity to innovate and compete of European businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises” and that “the language arrangements established by the contested regulation are capable of making access to the EPUE and the patent system as a whole easier, less costly and legally more secure”.

It said “the arrangement established by the contested regulation does indeed make it possible to facilitate access to patent protection by reducing the costs associated with translation requirements” and maintains “the necessary balance” between various interests.

Therefore, the decision to choose English, French and German “is appropriate and proportionate to the legitimate objective pursued by that regulation”.

The judgments are in line with the Advocate General’s opinion, published in November last year. A press release summarising them is also available.

Proponents of the Unitary Patent system, and the Unified Patent Court which will exist with it, will be relieved that the Court has given a clear and unambiguous judgment. Plans for the system can now proceed unchanged. In a tweet, the EPO said President Battistelli “pleased last legal obstacle to UPP-UPC has gone”.

However, some opponents may yet seek to file further challenges. One possibility floated is a challenge at the European Court of Human Rights, based on Protocol 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights, regarding prohibition of discrimination. This is outside the jurisdiction of the CJEU.

Read all Managing IP’s coverage of the Unitary Patent and UPC on our dedicated page.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Tim Gilman, who joined Kasowitz alongside three other partners, says he is excited to be part of the firm’s ‘elite’ litigation team
A backlash against a White House video promoting deportation and Casalonga opening a new office in Düsseldorf were also among the top talking points
The firm has brought on board two counsel and an associate to complement two previously revealed partner hires
Bradford Newman, who has joined the firm’s new Silicon Valley office as head of complex technology disputes, discusses plans to build the practice group and attract local talent
Managing IP summarises the highlights from the IP STARS rankings for copyright and IP transactions work, the final firm rankings release of the year
Developments included the first judgment from the Nordic Baltic division, an injunction covering the UK, and a new code of conduct
Alston & Bird acted for InterDigital, while Samsung was represented by Fish & Richardson, during the arbitration process
Powell Gilbert lawyers reveal how they navigated parallel EPO proceedings and collaborated with European peers to come out on top in the Nordic-Baltic Division’s first judgment
The firms posted increases in revenue and profit per equity partner, with both giving a nod to their IP expertise
EasyGroup, the owner of the easyJet airline, said in a press release that UK-based first-instance judges are “less experienced”, bringing a long-running debate back to the fore
Gift this article