Why the Commission is rattled over the Unitary Patent

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Cookies Settings

Why the Commission is rattled over the Unitary Patent

There is lots happening in Munich this week, as member state representatives gather on Bob-van-Benthem-Platz for a meeting of the Administrative Council on Wednesday. But while much of the focus on the EPO centres on industrial relations and governance issues, there are important Unitary Patent developments taking place too

epo20headquarters20in20munich.jpg

Today members of the select committee of the Admin Council tasked with setting application and renewal fees for the new patent begin their latest two-day meeting.

It is their first since the EPO floated two fee proposals earlier this month. Its so-called TOP4 and TOP5 proposals are based on, respectively, the cost of validating European patents in the most popular four or five member states.

The decision about how much it will cost to apply for and maintain a Unitary Patent was always going to be contentious, since those setting the levels have to reconcile a number of interests – including their own.

Industry has long-championed low fees (no surprise there). But now it seems that IP owners’ unwillingness to use the new system if the figures don’t stack up in their favour has got European Commission officials rattled.

On Friday we reported that senior members of DG Internal Market had shared with the EPO “in no uncertain terms” its view that the level of renewal fees is critical for the success of the system. (You can read more about what officials told us here).

After spending more than 40 years trying to get a pan-European patent right in place, it is easy to understand the bureaucrats’ frustration that it might be stymied from the start by member states keen to maximise their own financial share. The Commission enjoys merely observer status at the select committee meetings. But it is intriguing to think about what its representatives will be saying to member states during the coffee breaks.

Only 30% of our content is published on our blog – to access all of our content you need to be a subscriber. We like to offer our loyal blog readers a special rate, so register your interest in a subscription and we will be in touch shortly.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Eight years after its launch, members of the Australian patent firm’s Singapore office explain its growth strategy over the past year
Lawyers at Bowmans Kenya discuss the digital blind spots posed by the transition from physical ledgers to cloud databases and digital co-development models
The Powell Gilbert co-founder discusses the confidence required to launch a firm, building an enduring patent litigation practice and why developing the next generation has changed her measure of success
Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
Gift this article