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 2026

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

Cookies Settings

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

McDermott Will & Schulte lawyers explore why the UPC is seeing rapid adoption by medtech for fast-moving disputes, while pharma and biotech take a cautious, selective approach over revocation risks
IP firms may be growing more comfortable with external capital, but uncertainty over who could ultimately own the business is complicating the investment pitch
The former Western District of Texas judge addresses perceptions of his courtroom, reveals what comes next as he returns to practice at A&O Shearman and explains why marathon running is ‘cathartic’
International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition says it has been blocked from hosting its annual event in the city, ending a long tradition of holding the gathering in the days leading up to INTA’s flagship event
The ITC is a powerful tool for litigators, practitioners say, as the threat of an exclusion order on a critical tech component could mean disrupting the entire data centre's operations
Anna Toh plans to expand Rajah & Tann’s soft IP capabilities, leveraging its Southeast Asia network to support clients on cross-border portfolio management and commercial strategy
The Canadian boutique’s new IP lead says he wants to build a tech-enabled IP practice aimed at giving startups senior expertise away from the traditional ‘big law’ set-up
Qantm IP’s acquisition of Henry Goh & Co shows shifting attitudes towards private equity, with firms increasingly viewing external backing as a normal route to expansion rather than a source of concern
The firm’s involvement in prominent AI cases drew litigator Christian Mammen to join from Womble Bond Dickinson, as US firms continue to bolster AI-focused practices
Two judicial appointments confirmed in Paris and Mannheim, while cross-border injunctions and high-profile procedural rulings keep major patent practices occupied
Gift this article