EU Court says no to Italy and Spain and yes to unitary patent plan

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

EU Court says no to Italy and Spain and yes to unitary patent plan

Italy and Spain have failed to persuade the Court of Justice of the EU to prevent other member states from going ahead with the unitary patent

The two countries had complained to Europe’s top court over the European Council’s 2011 decision to use the so-called enhanced procedure to allow the remaining 25 member states to agree a deal between themselves on a single European patent.

Italy and Spain have long been opposed to the unitary patent on language grounds, complaining that plans to use English, French and German as the new patent’s official languages discriminates against Spanish and Italian speakers.

But today the Court ruled that it was acceptable for the European Council to use the enhanced cooperation procedure after efforts to achieve agreement from each of the EU’s 27 member states had failed.

Although the Court acknowledged that it would be unacceptable for the Council to use the enhanced procedure whenever member states failed to reach agreement on an issue, it said that in this case, the Council had carefully and impartially ascertained whether the condition of “last resort” had been met. In particular, the Court noted that negotiations on the unitary patent began in 2000 and that a range of language arrangements had been discussed by member states.

The judges also rejected Spain and Italy’s arguments that the decision by the other 25 states to press ahead with a unitary patent without them would damage the internal market or the economic, social and territorial cohesion of the EU.

Spain is believed to have filed another case at the CJEU challenging the patent plans on other grounds, though details of this complaint are not yet available.

Today's decision means the unitary patent and unified patent court (UPC) plans are on track. The new system is expected to come into effect in 2015, once the UPC agreement has been ratified by at least 13 member states.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Gift this article