Spain: New Patent Law comes into force
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

Spain: New Patent Law comes into force

Law 24/2015 came into force on April 1. It completely modifies the previous Spanish Law 11/1986.

The new Spanish Patent law aims to modernise our legal system and promotes a better fit with European and international patent law. Also, it pursues the eradication of the regulatory dispersion regarding the processing of patents, utility models and supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) and last but not least, reduces and expedites the administrative burden.

Among the most relevant changes that the new law brings along, the implementation of a single patent grant procedure with a substantive examination of patentability is noteworthy. This new procedure will foster the production of stronger patents in Spain. In addition to this important change in the proceeding under new Law, third parties may dispute the validity of a granted patent by filing a post-grant opposition as stated in the European Patent Convention (EPC). Another important novelty is that the search report (IET) on prior art will be issued within the priority year.

Additionally, the scope of utility models is extended to include substances and chemical compositions other than those related to biological materials and pharmaceuticals. Utility models have turned into an attractive alternative for certain inventions not only due to the increase in the scope of protection, but also because of the lack of preliminary examination. For some cases the use of utility models will be more efficient, fast and cost effective than protection through patents.

The present Law introduces the elimination of the exemption of the payment of fees by public universities. From April 1 2017 public universities have a 50% discount on fees which could be even 100% in those cases where inventions have reached the market. Entrepreneurs and SMEs will be paying 50% of fees for filing, preparation of the state of the art reports, conducting substantive examination and the payment of the three first annuities.

Opinions on the new Law are diverse. Private companies will for sure be those that best adapt to the new system. We expect that the new Patent Law will turn into an extraordinary opportunity to promote innovation in our country, besides pushing a major awareness about the capital importance of protecting R&D results through IP instruments.

Patricia Ramos


PONS IPGlorieta Rubén Darío, 428010 – Madrid SpainTel: +34 917007600Fax: +34 913086103clientes@pons.eswww.ponsip.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