Greece: Inventions made by Greeks abroad
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

Greece: Inventions made by Greeks abroad

The number of international patent applications (PCT and European applications) filed before the Greek patent office as receiving office has been steadily rising over the last few years. However this is certainly not the result of an economic growth. On the contrary the country has been in recession and the market has been shrinking over the years.

The rise in the number of applications seems to be an indirect effect of the migration of Greeks abroad. With a youth unemployment rate reaching close to 50%, thousands of young, educated Greeks have left the country to work in wealthier countries, mostly in western Europe.

In cases where they are working in scientific research that may result in patent applications, there is an absolute obligation that such patent applications be filed first in Greece. According to legislation dating back to 1963 (law 4325/63) all patent applications by Greek nationals need to be first filed in Greece in order to receive a check to determine whether they are relevant to national security. Accordingly, the restrictions apply to all inventions, having no priority application filed in Greece, where the inventor or applicant is a Greek citizen, regardless of whether he or she is resident in Greece.

It is worth noting that there are no provisions to allow one to retroactively correct a mistake if such an invention was first filed abroad. There are also no provisions for obtaining a security clearance or a foreign filing licence. Breach of the obligation to first file in Greece is considered a criminal offence, which could result to imprisonment of the inventor or applicant disclosing the invention abroad. While the legal provisions have not been applied in practice, they still exist, so an applicant or inventor would need to assess the risk, in such circumstances, before making a decision to first file abroad. In order to comply with the legal requirements, the applicant can either file a Greek national application, a European application or a PCT application, filed before the Greek patent office as receiving office. Apart from these criminal sanctions, there are no implications for the validity of the patent application of a Greek applicant or inventor, first filed abroad.

kilimiris.jpg

Constantinos Kilimiris


Patrinos & Kilimiris7, Hatziyianni Mexi Str.GR-11528 AthensGreeceTel: +30210 7222906, 7222050Fax: +30210 7222889info@patrinoskilimiris.comwww.patrinoskilimiris.com

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

High-earning businesses place most value on the depth of the external legal teams advising them, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
Kilpatrick Townsend was recognised as Americas firm of the year, while patent powerhouse James Haley won a lifetime achievement award
Partners at Foley Hoag and Kilburn & Strode explore how US and UK courts have addressed questions of AI and inventorship
In-house lawyers have considerable influence over law firms’ actions, so they must use that power to push their external advisers to adopt sustainable practices
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Counsel say they’re advising clients to keep a close eye on confidentiality agreements after the FTC voted to ban non-competes
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows US firms making major swoops for IP teams, while South Korea has also been a buoyant market
The finalists for the 13th annual awards have been announced
Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Gift this article