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 2025

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

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

Attorneys explain why there are early signs that the US Supreme Court could rule in favour of ISP Cox in a copyright dispute
A swathe of UPC-related hires suggests firms are taking the forum seriously, as questions over the transitional stage begin
A win for Nintendo in China and King & Spalding hiring a prominent patent litigator were also among the top talking points
Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard, who live-reported on the seminal dispute, unpicks the trials and tribulations of the case and considers its impact
Attorneys predict how Lululemon’s trade dress and design patent suit against Costco could play out
Lawyers at Linklaters analyse some of the key UPC trends so far, and look ahead to life beyond the transition period
David Rodrigues, who previously worked at an IP boutique, said he may become more involved in transactional work at his new firm
Indian smartphone maker Lava must pay $2.3 million as a security deposit for past sales, as its dispute with Dolby over audio coding SEPs plays out
Powell Gilbert’s opening in Düsseldorf, complete with a new partner hire, continues this summer’s trend of UPC-related lateral movement
IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Gift this article