What 52% tells us about the Unitary Patent discussions

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

What 52% tells us about the Unitary Patent discussions

There’s lots of good stats in the UK IPO’s excellent Corporate Plan 2014-17. One of the most revealing is that more than half of its income comes from European patent renewals

Yes, that’s right: the UK IPO makes more money from renewing EP(UK) patents than from all its other activities put together. According to the Office’s three-year plan, published this month, EP (UK) renewals are expected to bring in just over £42 million ($70 million) – that is 52% of total income – in 2014-15.

This will not be news to patent owners, particularly those who have to pay the extensive renewal fees for each member state in which their European patent is designated. There’s also no reason to think the UK is exceptional – I expect most European offices make a similar proportion of their income from EP renewals, if not more (though they may not be as transparent about it).

But it is worth thinking about as the 25 EU member states that have signed up to the Unitary Patent haggle over the fees to be charged.

Unlike European patents, Unitary Patents will be renewed centrally at the EPO. You might think therefore that little or no money will be distributed to national offices. But the EU Regulation specifically sets out that 50% of fees will be distributed to national offices based on “fair, equitable and relevant criteria”.

That was the result of a political compromise. And you can see why: if applicants switch away from European patents to Unitary Patents in large numbers, that will leave a big hole in the income of many national offices.

My understanding is that the UK’s position is that change is inevitable, and the system should be designed to offer value to users rather than revenue to national offices, even if that means a big drop in revenue. The Corporate Plan in fact notes that the Unitary Patent may have an effect on demand towards the latter part of the three-year plan.

But that will not be true of other offices in Europe.

And that tension explains why discussions over the renewal fees are still continuing, and we do not yet have any light on what they will be. As EPO President Benoit Battistelli told us last year, keeping fees down while trying to maintain national office revenues is “like trying to transform a circle into a square”.

But as we have argued before (Unitary Patent figures don’t add up; The importance of getting Unitary Patent fees right, Patent practitioners call for cost clarity), if the price of a Unitary Patent isn’t right, there’s no good reason why applicants should use it.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Boehringer Ingelheim has instructed a team from Kirkland, while Teva is being represented by Pinsent Masons
The Delhi High Court’s latest directions offer an opportunity to move beyond remedies against bad-faith registrations and address how suspicious applications are identified in the first place, says Fatima Baig at Lexlinc
Camilla Hamrin describes how the acquisition by Acapo Onsagers will impact Bergenstråhle’s trademark practice – and reflects on changes she has seen over 30 years in IP
On a recent trip to the French capital, we learned that the UPC is squeezing domestic litigation while firms are chasing senior talent, experimenting with AI and considering new ways of organising their practices
Daniel Law says a string of lateral hires and broader expansion plans will strengthen its position to capitalise on Brazil’s burgeoning IP and patent litigation market
Jason Raeburn’s arrival will expand the firm’s London footprint in AI, copyright and tech disputes
The firm is shaping its AI strategy around partnerships with Harvey and Legora alongside internally developed tools from its legal technology company, Eltemate
A dispute Down Under shows why trademark lawyers cannot afford to wait on the sidelines when a rival brand gathers momentum
The Third Circuit’s decision in Thomson Reuters v ROSS marks the first appellate-level decision addressing AI and fair use, prompting copyright counsel to consider arguments around potential licensing markets
Injunctions for HandsFree Labs and Align Technology come as the Court of Appeal warns that busy teams must have the staffing and resources to meet UPC deadlines
Gift this article