Preparing for the Unitary Patent

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

Preparing for the Unitary Patent

Sponsored by

inspicos-400px recrop.jpg
christian-lue-8yw6tsb8tnc-unsplash.jpg

Jakob Pade Frederiksen of Inspicos P/S discusses the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court regime expected to enter into force by early 2023

The Unitary Patent (UP) and Unified Patent Court (UPC) regime is expected to enter into force in late 2022 or early 2023. Under the future system, patentees may request unitary effect for their patents in the 17 EU States currently participating to the system. Patents with unitary effect will not have to undergo country-by-country validation. 

The exact date of entry into force of the new system will be triggered by Germany’s depositing of its instrument of ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement. 

In preparation for the coming into existence of the new system, the EPO has implemented transitional measures applicable to European patent applications having reached the final stage of the grant proceedings. 

The measures will be available for European patent applications, in respect of which the EPO has issued its communication under Rule 71(3) EPC informing the applicant of the intention to grant a patent. 

The first transitional measure provides the possibility for applicants to file a request for unitary effect before the entry into force of the new system. Once the UP system has started, the EPO will register unitary effect. Requests for unitary effect cannot, however, be validly filed before Germany deposits its instrument of ratification, or before the communication under Rule 71(3) EPC has been issued.

The second transitional measure enables applicants to request a delay in the EPO’s issuing of the decision to grant a European patent until immediately after the entry into force of the  UP system. Patentees may thus benefit from unitary protection and hence avoid country-by-country validation in the 17 participating countries. However, only requests filed after the date of Germany’s depositing of its instrument of ratification will be allowed. 

In respect of cases, where time limits for replying to ‘office actions’, i.e., communications under Article 94(3) EPC, or time limits under Rule 71(3) EPC, are already running, applicants who wish to benefit from unitary protection may consider not lodging early replies with the EPO. Rather, applicants may wish to benefit from the full reply periods available in order to increase their chances of being able to benefit from the transitional measures.

 

 

Jakob Pade Frederiksen

Partner, Inspicos P/S

E: jpf@inspicos.com

 

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Deals between five more law firms and President Trump and an antitrust lawsuit against Amgen were also among the top talking points this week
US counsel explain how they win new cleantech IP business and how they’re navigating the industry’s challenges
Leaders at the IP firms, which have joined forces with backing from a PE investor, share their vision of building the number one pan-European IP practice
Firms will steer clients towards other ways of getting quicker examinations, but fear the ramifications of the USPTO’s decision
Melissa Haapala added that returning to client advocacy and the chance to work on patent litigation were reasons for returning to private practice
Michelle Clark, who has a generalist litigation background, plans to focus on IP disputes at Alston & Bird
Philips and Vivo have entered into a licensing agreement, putting an end to a five-year-old telecom SEP dispute in India
Stefan Müller discusses managing deadlines, the importance of reflection, and why IP is more than just a 'nice to have'
The three founders of the IP firm’s new US offering say they plan to offer a unique proposition in a market fixated by the billable hour
The opinion provides useful guidance when it comes to how courts might consider contributory infringement, DMCA claims, and other issues in AI copyright cases
Gift this article