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

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

As global commerce continues to expand through e-commerce platforms and digital marketplaces, protecting brands has become a growing challenge for organisations worldwide. Counterfeiting, intellectual property infringement, and online brand abuse are increasing across industries, making brand protection strategies a critical priority for businesses.
Henrik Holzapfel and Chuck Larsen of McDermott Will & Schulte explain why a Court of Appeal ruling could promote access to justice and present a growth opportunity for litigation finance
A co-partner in charge says the UK prosecution teams are a ‘vital’ part of the firm’s offering, while praising a key injunction win
A team from White & Case has checked in on behalf of Premier Inn Hotels in a UK trademark and passing off case against a cookie brand
Litigation team says pre-trial work and a Section 101 defence helped significantly limit damages payable by ride-sharing firm Lyft in patent case
News of Avanci hiring a senior vice president and the EPO teaming up with a French AI startup were also among the top talking points
Explosm, the independent Texas studio behind the hit webcomic Cyanide & Happiness, partnered with Temu’s IP protection team to combat counterfeiters infringing on its brand
The latest in a dispute over juicing machines, and a shakeup in judicial compositions were also among the top developments
Patent partner Robert Hollingshead explains why the firm remains committed to Japan despite several US firms exiting the Japanese and greater Asia market
Emma Green, partner at Bird & Bird, shares why the Iceland v Iceland dispute could prompt businesses and lawyers to think differently about brand enforcement
Gift this article