Unitary Patent: Stop talking, start planning

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

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

Alexander Bjørnå, aera’s first hire in Norway, explains why it’s the right time to disrupt the country’s ‘traditional’ IP market
Natasha Ahmed said she was drawn to the firm’s commitment to artificial intelligence and tech transactions
As it celebrates its 50th anniversary this year, the firm discusses private equity interest in IP, why the UPC is a key priority, and being a ‘strategic adviser’ to clients
Thomas Rukin discusses IP due diligence, his joy at seeing colleagues succeed, and taking inspiration from Marcus Aurelius
The UK-India trade deal doesn’t mention legal services, showing India has again failed to agree on a move that could help foreign firms and local practitioners
Eva-Maria Strobel reveals some of the firm’s IP achievements and its approach to client relationships
Lateral hires at Thompson Hine and Pierson Ferdinand said they were inspired by fresh business opportunities and innovative strategies at their new firms
The launch of a new IP insurance product and INTA hiring a former USPTO commissioner were also among the top talking points this week
The firm explains how it secured a $170.6 million verdict against the government in a patent dispute surrounding airport technology, and why the case led to interest from other inventors
Developments of note included the court partially allowing a claim concerning confidentiality clubs and a decision involving technology used in football matches
Gift this article