Belgium: Translation no longer needed for validating a European patent

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

Belgium: Translation no longer needed for validating a European patent

The validation of a European patent in a contracting state is determined by Article 65 EPC, the London Agreement on the application of Article 65 EPC and the contracting state's national law. Hence, validation of a European patent in a contracting state may require the filing of a translation of the European patent as granted into one of the official languages of the contracting state, generally within three months from the date on which the mention of the grant of the European patent is published in the European Patent Bulletin.

Notably, the London Agreement has the objective of reducing costs linked to such validation, more in particular the translation of European patents. Each contracting state which has ratified the Agreement waives the requirement for furnishing such translations entirely or at least largely, depending on its official languages.

Heretofore, Belgium has not yet ratified the London Agreement. Consequently, in Belgium, the validation of a European patent granted in English still requires furnishing, by the prescribed deadline, a complete translation of the description and claims into one of the official Belgian languages (French, Dutch or German).

However, as from January 2017, the furnishing of such a translation to validate a European patent in Belgium will become superfluous!

The Belgian government, at its Council of State, enacted a new law on June 29 2016 which states that a European patent granted, amended after opposition or limited in any of the official EPC languages confers upon the patentee the same rights as a national Belgian patent. Consequently, it might also be expected that the Belgian Government intends to ratify the London Agreement shortly.

This new regime is highly advantageous for patent owners and for the Belgian government, since this major change in Belgian law will reduce both validation costs and a large amount of administrative work at the Belgian Patent Office. Furthermore, this will considerably reduce litigation between companies and the state of Belgium which arises when companies seek to re-instate their rights in Belgium for European patents granted in English if a translation is deemed not to have been properly filed.

Meanwhile, the legislator has reopened a time window, terminating on January 6 2017, for the retroactive reinstatement, under certain conditions, of granted, amended or limited European patents for which a translation was not duly provided to the Belgian Patent Office (See our previous article, 'Patent law harmonised with PLT').

kourgias.jpg
leroy.jpg

Cathy Kourgias

Pascal Leroy


GeversHolidaystraat, 5B-1831 Diegem - BrusselsBelgiumTel: +32 2 715 37 11Fax: +32 2 715 37 00www.gevers.eu

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

New members of the Access Advance patent pool and Harvard University coming under fire were also among the top talking points
Team from Graham Watt & Co will join Beck Greener’s London office
The firm reported a small uptick in overall revenue and profit per equity partner, while its IP team secured notable life sciences victories
Paul Ainsworth, who secured a settlement for his client in a patent dispute, says the case shows why medical claims by dietary supplement companies can threaten IP rights
Boies Schiller Flexner joins forces with Grünecker to target Skechers in Europe following US lawsuit
Helen Mutimer discusses how the firm’s IP advisory services are filling a gap in the market, and why life sciences work is soaring
In major recent developments, a confidentiality request was rejected, Samsung and its representative A&O Shearman secured a partial win, and EIP made a new hire
Tomas Wässingbo joins us for our ‘Five minutes with’ series to explain why he wants to change the perception around designs
PepsiCo was represented by PwC, while the Australian Taxation Office was advised by Australian-headquartered law firm MinterEllison
The firm said revenue from its ‘refreshed and expanded’ IP team increased by 4% in FY25
Gift this article