EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 30.6.2010 
SEC(2010) 796 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
 
 
Accompanying document to the 
  
Proposal for a 
 
COUNCIL REGULATION 
 
on the translation arrangements for the European Union patent 
   
{COM(2010) 350 final} 
{SEC(2010) 797} 
EN 2   EN Disclaimer 
This impact assessment report commits only th e Commission's services involved in its 
preparation. The report has been prepared as  a basis for comment and does not prejudge the 
final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission . 
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
1.1. Organisation and timing 
The Commission's initial proposal for a Counc il Regulation on the Community patent was 
presented on 1 August 2000, on the basis of Arti cle 308 EC. It covered all elements for the 
creation of a single EU-wide patent, including translation arrangements1.  
The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009 has resulted in a change of the 
legal basis for the proposal for the Regulation on the Community patent  (now EU patent): 
• in accordance with the first s ubparagraph of Article 118 TFEU , measures for the creation 
of European intellectual propert y rights are to be establishe d by the European Parliament 
and the Council acting under the or dinary legislative procedure; 
• in accordance with the second subparagr aph of Article 118 TFEU, the language 
arrangements for European inte llectual property rights are to be established under a special 
legislative procedure by the Council acting una nimously after consulting the European 
Parliament. It follows that the translation arra ngements for the future EU patent must be 
established by a separate regulation subjec t to a different legislative procedure. 
On 4 December 2009, the Council adopted conclu sions on the Enhanced patent system in 
Europe2. The conclusions (§36) state that "The EU  patent Regulation should be accompanied 
by a separate regulation, which should govern the translation arrangements for the EU patent 
adopted by the Council with unanimity in accord ance with the second subparagraph of Article 
118 TFEU. The EU patent Regula tion should come into force together with the separate 
regulation on the translation arra ngements for the EU patent." On this basis, the Commission 
is presenting a proposal for a Council Regulation on the translation arrangements for the EU 
patent.  
1.2. Internal consultations 
The Impact Assessment was monitored by an In ter-Services Steering Group. The last meeting 
of the Steering Group was convened on 25 March 2010. 
A draft of this Impact Assessment Report was submitted to the Impact Assessment Board on 
29 March 2010. The Board met on 14 April 2010. In its opinion da ted 16 April 2010, the 
Board found that the report provided the necessary evidence base for action in the area, but suggested further improvements in the analysis on a number of issues.  
                                                
 
1 Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Community patent - COM(2000) 412. 
2 Council Document 17229/09, Annex: Council conclusions on an enhanced patent system, adopted in 
2982nd Council meeting - Competitiveness (Internal market, Industry and Research); Brussels, 
4 December 2009. 
EN 3   EN The IA Board recommended that the current context and problem definition should be 
strengthened in order to facilitate the anal ysis of the impacts, political feasibility and 
subsidiarity of the proposed op tions. It also recommended st rengthening analysis of the 
change in costs across different options and distinguishing more clearly between the 
economic factors and political constraints. The IA Board proposed that aggregate cost 
estimates at the EU level are provided for e ach option and as compared to the baseline 
scenario. A more extensive analysis of the pr oblem drivers, including, for example, a more 
detailed explanation on a low valida tion rate, was also recommended.  
All of the above comments from the IA Board ha ve been taken into ac count in revising the 
impact assessment. On the basis of the re vised economic analysis, Option 2 has been 
identified as the preferred one for the legislative proposal.  
1.3. Consultation of interested parties 
The views of interested partie s concerning the translation arra ngements for the EU patent 
have been heard on several previous occasions.  
In January 2006, the Commission launched a broad consultation on the future patent policy in 
Europe3. More than 2500 replies were received from a variety of stakeholders, including 
businesses in all sectors of the economy, indus try associations, SME associations, patent 
practitioners, public authoritie s and academics. The replies cl early showed stakeholders' 
disappointment with the lack of  progress with the Community pa tent project. In particular, 
sharp criticism was voiced against the transl ation arrangements included in the Council's 
common political approach of 3 March 2003, wh ich laid down that the patent proprietor 
would have to supply a translation of the claims  into all official Community languages4. 
Nearly all stakeholders rejected this solution as  being unsatisfactory: criticisms focused on the 
high costs and practical difficulties for patent proprietors as well as the legal uncertainty for all users of the patent system. The support fo r other options varied  substantially; some 
stakeholders requested an Eng lish-only regime, while others preferred various multilingual 
arrangements.  
Despite the above criticisms, stak eholders also expressed conti nued support for the concept of 
a "unitary, affordable  and competitive" Community patent. This message was repeated at a 
public hearing held on 12 July 200 6, where a large variety of stakeholders again stated their 
support for the creation of a Co mmunity patent – but not " at any price ". SME representatives 
in particular confirmed that the translation arrangements in the common political approach 
would be far too costly for them
5. 
On the basis of the stakeholder consulta tion, the Commission adopted the Communication 
"Enhancing the patent system in Europe" in April 20076 which outlined the way forward as 
envisaged by the Commission, in cluding the creation of the Co mmunity patent and possible 
solutions for the translation arrangements. 
                                                 
3 The consultation document, replies from stakeholders and a report on the preliminary findings of the 
consultation are available at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/patent/consultation_en.htm.  
4 Council Document 6874/03, 2490th Council meeting - Competitiveness (Internal market, Industry and 
Research), Brussels, 3 March 2003. 
5 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indp rop/docs/patent/hearing/report_en.pdf.  
6 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - COM(2007) 165, 
3.4.2007. 
EN 4   EN Discussions with stakeholders continued on the basis of this Communication throughout 
2008. On 16-17 October 2008, the Commission jointly with the French Presidency of the Council organised a confer ence on Industrial Property Rights in Europe
7. One of the major 
issues discussed were the possible transla tion arrangements for the future EU patent. 
Participants reiterated in partic ular that the EU pate nt "should be cost-effec tive, legally secure 
and reduce complexity", and expr essed broad support for new init iatives aiming at developing 
specialised machine translation programmes for patent documents8. 
On 14 October 2008, a "European Parliament of Enterprises" (meeting of 774 entrepreneurs 
from European countries, supported by Eurocham bres and national chambers of commerce) 
debate was held in the European Parliament . An overwhelming majority of represented 
entrepreneurs emphasised that the continued lack  of a single EU-wide patent was damaging to 
European businesses and called for the creati on of the EU patent as soon as possible9. 
The issue of translation arrangem ents for the EU patent has also  been extensively addressed in 
the consultation on the Small Business Act – a ra nge of initiatives targeted to the needs of 
European SMEs in 2008. Again, stakeholders id entified high patenting costs as the main 
obstacle to patent protection in the EU and requ ested the creation of a unitary EU patent as 
soon as possible10. In their separate submissions to the consultation, businesses in general and 
SME representatives in particul ar unequivocally requested a si gnificant reduction of the costs 
of patenting (including translation costs) for the future EU patent11. 
Numerous recent position papers from various stak eholders refer to the EU patent and to the 
translation arrangements. European  interest groups representing us ers of the patent system in 
Europe, such as BusinessEurope12, UEAPME13 and Eurochambres14, confirm that businesses, 
both large and small, request a simplified, cost-effective and accessible EU patent. National 
interest groups in many Member States and across industry sectors15 raise identical issues: 
direct translation costs, indirect costs related  to translations (for example fees charged by 
patent agents and publication fees charge d by national patent o ffices) and statutory 
complexity (red-tape such as formal requirements to be complied with when filing the 
translations at the national patent offices) are identified by stakeholders as major obstacles 
preventing innovative businesses from obtaining patent protect ion throughout the EU. A new 
                                                 
7 Documents and conclusions of the Conference are available at  
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/rights/index_en.htm. 
8 See Council document 6985/08, 28 February 2008 and Council document 8928/08, 28 April 2008. 
9 Results of the European Parliament of Enterprises on 14 October 2008, available at 
http://www.eurochambres.eu. 
10 Small Business Act for Europe, Report on the Results of the Open Consultation, 22 April 2008, 
available at www.ec.europa .eu/enterprise/newsroom. 
11 UEAPME Expectations on the Proposal for a Eu ropean Small Business Act, 14 December 2007, 
available at www.ueapme.com. Response to the Consultation on a Small Business Act for Europe, 2 April 2008, available at http://www.eurochambres.eu. 
12 Views on key issues of the patent reform debate in Europe, 11 August 2008, available at 
http://www.businesseurope.eu. 
13 Position on the recent policy deve lopments on the European Community  patent, 19 June 2008, available 
at http://www.ueapme.com. 
14 Position paper on the European Patent System, 8 April 2008, available at http://www.eurochambres.eu. 
15 Position papers from BDI (Bundesverband der Deut schen Industrie), DIHK (Deutscher Industrie- und 
Handelskammertag), CBI (Confederation of Britis h Industries), CCIP (Chambre de commerce et 
d'industrie de Paris), CGPME (Confédération gé nérale des petites et moyennes entreprises), 
Unioncamere, DigitalEurope, Orgalime, ACT (Association for Competitive Technology), Cefic and 
others. 
EN 5   EN approach based on specialised machine transl ations is generally welcomed, but it is 
emphasised that such machine translations must  not have any legal effect and be used for 
information purposes only.  
2. POLICY CONTEXT , PROBLEM DEFINITION AND SUBSIDIARITY  
2.1. Policy context 
2.1.1.  The Patent Systems in Europe 
In the EU, patent protection can be obtained ei ther through the national patent offices of the 
EU Member States or the Eu ropean Patent Office (EPO). 
National patent systems 
Each Member State has its own patent office which deals with applications for national 
patents. If an application a nd the invention to which it rela tes meet the requirements of 
national patent law (in particular  the patentability requirements),  a national patent  is granted. 
The protection conferred by a national patent is limited to the territory  of the State concerned.  
Normally, European inventors and businesses choos e to file patent app lications at a national 
patent office first. Following a novelty search and a preliminary examination carried out by 
the national office, the applicant then deci des whether to pursue or abandon the national 
patent application, apply for a European patent at the EPO, or file a patent application under 
the international Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).  
The European patent system 
If the applicant chooses to apply for a European  patent, the applicati on will be dealt with by 
the EPO under the procedures laid down in th e European Patent Convention (EPC). The EPC 
was adopted in 1973 and entered in to force in 1977. It does not form part of the EU legal 
order, but all EU Member States are Contracting States to the EPC16.  
The EPC has established centralised  procedures for the searc h, examination and grant of 
European patents. On the basis of one single pa tent application processed in one of the three 
working languages of the EPO (English, French  and German), inventors and businesses can 
obtain a European patent for one or mo re Contracting States to the EPC.  
Of particular relevance for the present imp act assessment is the fact that any patent 
application  is published  by the EPO eighteen months after th e date of filing, in the working 
language of the EPO in which the application is processed (the language of proceedings) 
(Article 93 EPC). The applic ation (which comprises clai ms, description and drawings17) is 
thus made available to the public, in electr onic format on the European publication server18.  
                                                 
16 Other larger Contracting States to the EPC includ e Croatia, Iceland, Norway , Switzerland and Turkey. 
17 The claims  define the matter for which protection is sought; they determine the extent of the protection 
conferred by the patent (Articles 84 and 69 EPC). The description  indicates the background art, 
discloses the invention, describes at least one way to carrying it out and indicates the way in which the 
invention is industrially applicable; the description is used to interpret the claims (Rule 42 and Article 69 EPC). 
18 The European publication server is the EPO's internet-platform for obtaining on-line copies of European 
patent applications and European patents. New publications are uploaded every week. See 
EN 6   EN If eventually granted by the EPO19, the European patent is published by the EPO in the 
language of proceedings, together  with a translation of the cl aims in the two other working 
languages of the EPO (Article 14(6) EPC). The authentic text  of the European patent is the 
text in the language of proceedings – both in proceedings before the EPO and in any 
Contracting State to the EPC (Article 70(1) EPC). 
A European patent has the same legal effect as a national patent in the Contracting States to 
the EPC in which the patent proprietor desires protection for his/her invention. However, the 
European patent does not take effect automatically  in most Contracting States. It must first be 
validated  in the States in which the pa tent proprietor wishes protection. 
Validation requirements. National law may require that  the patent proprietor: 
– files with the national patent office a translatio n of the European patent into the official 
language of the State wher e protection is desired, 
– pays a publication fee to the national patent office, and 
– complies with various formal requirements relating in particular to the number of copies to 
be filed, use of prescribed  forms, and time periods. 
Where the patent proprietor fails to observe any of the above validation requirements in a 
particular State, the European patent is deemed to be void ab initio  in that State. Although the 
requirement of a translation has always been  optional for EPC Cont racting States, many 
countries selected to apply this requirement from the entry into force of the EPC. Other 
countries that did not initially require transl ations followed suit, thereby adding costs and 
complexity for companies in Europe when pate nting beyond national border s. For example, as 
a founding EPC Contracting state, the United Ki ngdom initially did not require translations 
into English but introduced such requirements from 1987, ten years after the EPC entered into 
force20. 
The London Agreement.  In order to reduce the costs cau sed by validation requirements, the 
Agreement on the application of Article 65 EP C (London Agreement) was adopted in October 
2000 by an Intergovernmental Conferen ce of the EPC Contracting States21. The London 
Agreement is an optional scheme, allowing for co llective action to reduce patenting costs. It 
entered into force on 1 May 2008 for fourteen EPC Contracting States of which ten are EU 
Member States22. 
Contracting States with an official language in common with one of the EPO working 
languages that are party who ar e party to the London Agreement are required to dispense 
                                                                                                                                                         
https://data.epo.org/publication-server/?lg=en for the platform in the English language. Other platforms 
maintained by EPO also enable on-line access to European patent documents; see esp@enet, epoline 
and Register Plus. 
19 On average, in 2008, a granted European patent was published 43 months after the application was 
received, see Annual Repo rt of the EPO, 2008. 
20 UK Intellectual Property Office Manual of Patent Practice, Section 76, at http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-
types/pro-patent/p-law/p-manual/p-manual-practice/p-manual-practice-pat1977.htm 
21 OJ EPO 2001, 550.  
22 The London Agreement entered into  force on 1.5.2009 in the follo wing EU Member States: DE, DK, 
FR, LU, LV, LT, NL, SE, SI and UK. The other States  parties to the Agreement are CH/LI, HR, IS and 
MC.  
EN 7   EN entirely with translation requirements (Article 1(1) of the Agreement). Within the EU, this 
applies to France, Germany, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom. 
Contracting States not having an official language in common with one the EPO working 
languages may require a translation of the claims  into their official language and nominate 
one of the working languages of the EPO into which the description should be translated if 
this is not the language of proceedings at the EPO (Article 1(2) and (3) of the London 
Agreement). Within the EU, Denmark, Latvia , Lithuania, the Neth erlands, Slovenia and 
Sweden require translation of the claims into their official  language. Of these countries, 
Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden have no minated English for translations of the 
description, therefore requi ring this translation if  the patent has been granted in French or 
German. 
Seventeen Member States are not parties to the London Agreement and still require a 
translation of the entire patent  into their official language (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, 
Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estoni a, Finland, Greece, Hungary23, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Poland, 
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain)24. Despite the clear benefits  for reducing the costs of 
patenting new technology for European companies in the domestic market , ratification of the 
London Agreement has not taken place in most EU Member States, mainly for political 
reasons. 
                                                 
23 Hungary is expected to  accede to the Londo n Agreement on 1 January 2011. 
24 It should be noted that currently Ireland and Malta do not require a translation of a European patent into 
Irish and Maltese. For validation in Ireland and Malta, it suffices that the European patent is available in 
English. 
EN 8   EN Figure 1  – Translation requirements under the London Agreement in the EU Member States25 
Language in common  
with the EPO (4)  
D: NO
C: YES D: YES 
C: YES D:EN
C: YESD: NO
C: YES  EU Member States 
which have not 
ratified  the LA (17)Description  
Claims
DE, FR, LU, UK LV, LT, SI  DK, NL, SEAT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, EE, FI, EL, ES, 
(HU), IE, IT, MT, PL, PT, RO, SK 
FI GREU Member States which have ratified the LA (10)
NO language in common
with the EPO (6)
 
Source: Economic incongruities in the European patent systems: B van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie and M Mejer 
(2008)  
2.1.2.  The Community (EU) Patent Proposal 
Following a consultation process initiate d in 1997 by a Green paper on promoting 
innovation26 – which first introduced the concept of  creating the Community patent by means 
of a Regulation – the Commission adopted a proposal for a Regulation on the Community 
patent in August 200027. This was also a response to calls from the European Council in 
Lisbon on 23 and 24 March 2000, which underl ined the importance of introducing a 
Community patent without delay.  
The Commission proposal aimed at an affordable  Community patent in terms of translation 
costs: once the patent would had been grante d in one of the working languages of the EPO 
(English, French or German) and published in that  language together with a translation of the 
claims into the other two worki ng languages of the EPO, the pate nt would have taken effect in 
the EU without any further translation . Only where legal proceedings would have been 
                                                 
25 Source: van Pottelsberghe / Meijer, 20008, The London Agreement and the cost of patenting in Europe, 
Bruegel Working Paper, 2008/05 and reproduced in "Economic Cost-Benefit Analysis of the 
Community Patent" by van Pottelsberghe / Danguy, study on behalf of the European Commission; 
updated on the basis of www.epo.org/patents/la w/legal-texts/london-agr eement/status.html  
26 Promoting innovation through patents – Green paper on the Community patent and the patent system in 
Europe - COM(97) 314, 24.6.1997. 
27 Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Community patent - COM(2000) 412, 1.8.2000. 
EN 9   EN initiated against an alleged infringer would the patent proprietor have had to supply a 
translation of the entire patent. 
In March 2003, the Council adopted a common po litical approach on the Community patent. 
This provided that patent proprietors would have to supply translations of the claims into all 
the official languages of the EU Member States which in addition could have had legal effect 
provided in Article 70(3) EPC28. Such a language a rrangement would have  been significantly 
more costly to patent proprietors than th e original Commission pr oposal. Although intending 
to provide protection for third parties in infringement acti ons when a translation has a 
narrower scope than the original language, the possible legal effect  of claims translations into 
all EU languages would have created significa nt legal uncertainty. It was consequently 
rejected by all users of the patent system as too costly and too risky. Another reason for the 
rejection was the practical difficulties of s upplying numerous translations within a limited 
time period after the grant of the patent. Fo llowing the 2003 common political approach, the 
Council failed to reach a final agreement on the Community patent.  
Given the importance of patent policy fo r innovation, the Commissi on launched a broad 
consultation on the future of patent policy in Europe in January 2006. This re-affirmed the 
need for action to provide a simple, cost-e ffective and legally-secure Community patent 
system, as well as stakeholders' continued sup port for the concept of a Community patent as 
yielding the most added valu e for European industry.  
Discussions on the Community pa tent were re-launched in th e Council after adoption by the 
Commission of the Communicati on "Enhancing the patent syst em in Europe" in April 200729, 
which confirmed the commitment to the creation of a single Community patent as the most 
affordable and legally secure answer to the challenges with which Eu ropean businesses are 
confronted in the field of patents and innovati on. The Communication offered to explore with 
Member States how to simplify the translation arrangements with a view to reduce translation 
costs of the Community patent while increasing legal certainty for all innovative businesses. 
Most recently, in December 2009 the Council a dopted conclusions on the Enhanced patent 
system for Europe and a general approach on the proposal for a Regulation on the EU patent. 
As explained in Section 1.1, due to  the entry into force of the Li sbon Treaty and the change of 
legal basis for the creation of the EU patent, the translation arrangements for the EU patent must now be included in a separate regul ation to be proposed by the Commission.  
2.2. Problem definition 
The lack of an EU patent entails a fragmented system for patent protect ion in the EU. Patent 
proprietors appear to refrain from seeking EU-wide patent c overage due mainly to the high 
costs and complexity of validating Europ ean patents in several Member States.  
High costs of validation. Direct and indirect translation co sts can add up to about 40% of the 
overall costs of patenting in Europe. It has been  estimated that a European patent validated in 
                                                
 
28 Common political approach, pt. 2.3: "the applicant must, upon the grant of the patent, file a translation 
of all claims into all official Community languages except if a Member State renounces the translation 
into its official language. The translation will be  filed with the EPO and the cost borne by the 
applicant", see Council document 6874/03, referred to in footnote 4.  
29 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - COM(2007) 165. 
EN 10   EN 13 countries is more than 10 times more expe nsive than a patent in the US or Japan30. These 
costs particularly affect SMEs, young innovati ve companies (YICs), start-up companies and 
public research organisations, and they impede access to the patent system.  
As explained in section 2.1.1.2, national laws of most EU Member States require that the 
patent proprietor supplie s translations of the patent into th e official languages of the Member 
States in which protection is s ought. The translations must be f iled with the national patent 
offices, which shall make them available to  the public. Significant costs, red-tape and 
complexity accrue in this process: 
- Costs of technical translations . Specialised translators are need ed to translate the technical 
text contained in patents. On average, 85 EUR are charged per page31. The number of pages to 
be translated depends on the length of the patent : a patent of typical le ngth contains 15 pages 
of description, 4 pages of cl aims and 1 page of drawings32. 
- Fees charged by patent agents . Local patent agents often act as intermediaries between the 
patent proprietor and the nati onal patent offices where the tr anslations are to be filed33. They 
may offer to arrange for translati ons or verify translations carried  out by external translators, 
or they may offer to ensure that formal requirements laid down by national law are complied with
34. Fees must be paid by the patent proprieto r for such services, and they vary from 
around 150 EUR to 600 EUR per validation of a patent depending on the Member State35. 
- Official fees charged by national patent o ffices for the publication of the translations . 
Figure 2  below shows the publication f ee (also known as "printing f ee" in countries where the 
publication still consists in printing the pate nt on paper) for a European patent of typical 
length (20 pages)36.  
                                                 
30 Bruno van Pottlesberghe de la Potterie and Didier François, the Cost factor in Patent Systems, 
Université Libre de Bruxelles Working Paper WP-CEB 06-002, Brussels 2006, see pp.17 et seq. 
31 This estimation was taken as a basis by the Council in the common political approach of 3.3.2003. It is 
confirmed by data provided by translation service providers. 
32 Harhoff (et al.), referred to in note 27, arrive at a actual mean number of 21,24 pages per patent. The 
"Study on the Cost of Patenting" carried out by Rola nd Berger Market Research finds an average of 23 
pages, of which 4 pages of claims. 
33 In some Member States, national law appears to still require that such formalities be carried out by a 
local patent agent.  
34 An exhaustive list of these requirements can be found  in the EPO's publication "National law relating to 
the EPC", 14th edition, June 2009, pages 99-135. See also http://www.epo.org/patents/law/legal-
texts/html/natlaw/en/iv/index.htm.  
35 Source: Interviews with patent agents and Roland Berger Study.  
36 See "National law relating to the EPC", 14th edition. Further complexity is added by national provisions 
on (i) additional page fees for longer patents and (ii)  special fee schedules where the patent proprietor 
files an electronic version of the patent. 
EN 11   EN Figure 2  – Publication fee charged in EU Memb er States for a typical European patent 
 
Publication Fees
050100150200250300350400
UKLUITFRDEBENLBGIEEELTLVPLCZCYSIROSKPTDKMTHUELSEATESFI 
Source: National Law relating to the EPC, 14th Edition  
Figure 3  below illustrates the total validation cost s (including direct tr anslation costs and 
estimated related costs such as patent agent fees  and publication fees) for a European patent of 
typical length (granted by the EPO in German), in respectively three, six and thirteen EU 
Member States: 
– if the patent proprietor wishes protection in  only three Member States – Germany, France 
and UK (which are parties to the London Agr eement) – no validation requirements apply 
and no costs are incurred;  
– if protection is desired in six Member St ates (which are all parties to the London 
Agreement), costs amount to 3 000 EUR; 
– if protection is desired in six Member States (of which three are not parties to the London 
Agreement), costs amount to more than 4 500 EUR; 
– finally, validation costs are more than 12 00 0 EUR when protection  in thirteen EU 
Member States is desired. 
EN 12   EN Figure 3  – Example of total validatio n costs (in EUR) of a Eur opean patent of typical length 
in a selection of EU Member States  
Validation Costs of a typical European Patent
02000400060008000100001200014000
DE,FR,UK DE,FR,UK +
DK, NL, SEDE, FR, UK +
ES, IT, PTDE, FR, UK+
DK, NL, SE +
ES, IT, PT, AT
+  BE, IT, LUCosts
 
Source: own calculations  
It should be borne in mind that for a longer pate nt, (for example, in the field of biotechnology, 
where patents can extend to 200 pages) the va lidation costs for only 13 Member States may 
amount to more than 140 000 EUR. Moreover, an average length patent is estimated to cost 
between 22 000 and 26 000 EUR in valida tion costs for EU-wide coverage. 
Fragmentation due to low number of validations. A European patent is usually validated in 
only a few countries selected by the patent proprietor: currently, a European patent is, on 
average, validated in only five EU Member States37. The number of validations has even 
decreased  over the last 15 years, although the nu mber of EPC Contracting States has 
increased from 17 (in 1995) to 37 today38. There is no straightforward explanation for this 
slight decline since a number of factors affect the patenti ng strategy for a company and 
decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis. Possi ble explanations include a general rise in 
number of applications and gr anted patents (e.g. about 78000 a pplications were received at 
the EPO in 1995 compared to more than 146000 in 2008) resulting in larger company patent 
portfolios and therefore fewer designations in or der not to increase the overall costs of their 
patent portfolio.  
Figure 4  below shows the share of European patents that were validated in the EPC 
Contracting States in 1995 a nd 2003. In 2003, 95% of all pate nts granted by the EPO were 
                                                 
37 See, for example, "Study on the Cost of Patenti ng" carried out by Roland Berger Market Research, 
August 2004. 
38 See "Economic cost-benefit analysis of the Community patent" – study by van Pottelsberghe / Danguy 
on behalf of the European Commission, on the basis of data provided by the EPO. 
EN 13   EN validated in Germany, 80% were validated in France and 75% in the United Kingdom. For all 
other countries, the vali dation rate is below 40%39. 
Figure 4  – Share of EPO patents validat ed in EPC Contracting States  
 
The decision of a patent propr ietor to validat e a European patent in a particular country 
depends on several factors: high costs (arising from direct tran slation costs, publication fees, 
annual renewal fees) have a str ong negative impact, but other fact ors such as a country's GDP, 
population, number of years of EP C membership, and distance to other countries also impact 
on the validation decision40. In practice, the European patent  thus provides pa tent protection 
in mainly a few EU Member States. This has far-reaching consequences: (i) it reduces the commercial value of the patented invention; (ii)  it impedes businesses' cross-border activities; 
(iii) it leaves business opportuni ties unexploited. Worse still, it entails a fragmented system 
for patent protection in the EU with negative effects on the functioning of the Internal Market; 
patent right "borders" are being erected ar ound individual Member States because the 
territorial limits of patent rights are left in tact. Finally, the fragment ation leads to reduced 
dissemination of technological inform ation as the translations of patents into most of the EU 
languages are not available. 
Taking into account the number of validations e ach year across all EU Member States, it is 
estimated that between 205 and 230 million EU R is spent by companies on translations, 
validations and professi onal charges. Moreover, it should be  borne in mind that this overall 
figure covers European patents, validated on av erage in only 5 Member States. If all patents 
were validated in all EU Member States, this figure would be many times higher. 
On the other hand, the EU pate nt would provide protection traversing  the internal borders of 
the EU, embracing and covering the entire Internal Market. The EU patent – by establishing a 
single property right border around the Internal Market – would thus avoid the creation of 
internal  patent right borders along th e national borders of the EU  Member States. This has 
relevance to the principle of free moveme nt of goods in the Internal Market.  
                                                
 
39 Harhoff / Hoisl / Reichl / van Pottelsberghe, 2009, "Patent validation at the country level: the role of 
fees and translation costs", Research Policy, November  2009. Italy is not included due to the lack of 
information on validations in Italy. Broad estimates by the EPO suggest that 30–40% of the patents 
granted by the EPO are generally validated in Italy. 
40 Obviously, these latter factors are constant over time and cannot serve as leverage for policy options. 
EN 14   EN As explained above, the London Agreement lowers th e costs relating to translations for patent 
proprietors, but it does not overcome the fragme ntation caused by the national patent right 
borders created by the European patent after grant. On the contrary, by cutting validation 
costs entirely in four Member Stat es (DE, FR, LU and the UK) but only reducing  costs in six 
other Member States where translations of the claims  still have to be supplied (DK, LT, LV, 
NL, SE, SI) – while  validation requirements are left untouc hed in seventeen Member States – 
the London Agreement actually risks reinforcing  patent proprietors' selective validation 
practices. Patent right borders wi ll therefore be left intact within the EU. This has major 
undesirable effects on the functioni ng of the Internal Market:  
• Among other factors in commercial decisions, th e concentration of pa tent protection in a 
few major Member States (often those wh ich have ratified or acceded to the London 
Agreement) risks leading to a concentra tion of investments in  R&D and technology 
transfers in these States. In smaller and ne w Member States (often those which have not 
ratified or acceded to the London Agreement) c ontinuous low patenting activity is likely to 
have a knock-on effect on R&D activity and innovation, making it  particularly difficult for 
SMEs in these States to grow and explo it the opportunities of the Internal Market. 
• In relation to the enforcemen t of patent rights, if goods enter the EU th rough a Member 
State where a patent is not in force, the patent proprietor may not rely on the EU Customs 
Code41 to withhold the goods suspected to be in breach of the patent. The goods have to be 
released by the customs authorities  and thus allowed to circulate freely within the Internal 
Market, possibly also including the Member States where the patent is in force. The 
identification of the goods in br each of a patent becomes very  complicated at this stage. 
Access to technological information. A further shortcoming of the current translation 
arrangements for European patents is the practical  difficulties in accessing  the translations at 
some national patent offices. While some o ffices do make the translations available 
electronically42, others only provide access to paper copi es that can be cons ulted in the public 
reading rooms of the national patent offices, or  copied at the expense of interested third 
parties. The number of translat ions consulted in Member States where translations are only 
available in printed form is extremely lo w – less than 2% according to estimates43.  
It must also be kept in mind that the publication of the translations takes place very late in the 
"life cycle" of the patent – often not before fi ve years after the date of filing of the patent 
application. Yet innovative businesses must keep abreast of the latest technological 
developments in their field by monitoring new patent applications  filed by their competitors – 
which are published already eighteen months af ter the date of filing (in the language of 
proceedings before the EPO) – not by reading the translations supplied se veral years later. In 
practice, no meaningful "veille technologi que" can take place only on the basis of the 
translations filed at the na tional patent offices after the patent has been granted.  
                                                 
41 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code 
(OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1), as amended. 
42 CDs and DVDs are still used for storing and copying information but their use will in future be limited 
to static data collections. The introduction of online publication servers constitutes the major shift 
which will shape patent information policy in the 21st century, radically reducing the interval between 
publication and distribution of information. 
43 Response to Written Question no 88618 of 14.3.2 006 (JO Question écrites, Assemblée nationale, 25, 
20.06.2006, p.6598). See also Rapport de la Mission de Concertation sur le Brevet Européen "Les 
enjeux de l'Accord de Lo ndres" (Rapport Vianès). 
EN 15   EN The problems of the current patent sy stem in Europe are summarised in Figure 5  below. 
Figure 5  – Problems of the current patenting system 
 
 
 
 
Direct translation costs  Related costs ( i.e., pu blication 
costs and professional 
services) 
  
  
 
High costs of patenting 
 
 
 
 
Comprehensive 
patent protection 
inaccessible to 
many European 
in novators  Low validation rate 
of European 
patents in  Mem ber 
States  Few translations 
available into all 
EU languages / 
Few translations 
cons ul ted 
 
 
 
 
Negat ive infl ue nce  
on innovation and 
competitiveness of 
European 
businesses globally  Fragmented Single 
Market and 
difficulties in cross-
border 
enforcement  Reduced 
dissemin ation  of 
technical 
inform ation  
 
 Out of the scope 
of the exercise Scope of the exercise 
Search, 
examination and grant fees 
for European 
and EU patents 
 
As this impact assessment deals only with the translation arrangements for the EU patent, 
other costs of obtaining and main taining a patent, such as pre- grant fees for the EU patent 
(e.g. search, examination, grant fees) and rene wal fees, fall outside the scope of this 
exercise44. 
2.3. Subsidiarity 
The creation of European intellectual propert y rights to provide unifo rm protection throughout 
the EU and associated language arrangements is provided for by Article 118 TFEU. Only the 
EU is entitled to act to create uniform intellectual property rights in the EU.  
The problems outlined above can only be addre ssed by a single EU-wide patent that does not 
require national validations and that has a drasti cally reduced translation regime compared to 
the current European patent. 
                                                 
44 This is addressed in detail in the studies carried out for the European Commission by Bruno van 
Pottelsberghe: "Economic cost-benefit analysis of the Community patent" of 7 April 2009 and "Patent 
fees for a sustainable EU patent system" (forthcoming). 
EN 16   EN 3. OBJECTIVES  
The Europe 2020 strategy adopted  by the Commission on 3 March 201045 puts forward three 
mutually-reinforcing priorities: smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. The first of these requires strengthening knowledge  and innovation as drivers for future growth. A key element 
of this is improving the framework conditions for businesses to innovate , and the Europe 2020 
strategy expressly mentions the creation of a singl e EU patent and a specialised patent court. 
The EU patent will provide for uniform protection of patent rights in the Internal Market, thereby creating more favourable conditions for i nvestment in R&D, particularly in regions 
with below average innovation activity
46. This should therefore f acilitate reaching the 3% 
target of GDP invested in  R&D affirmed by Europe 2020. 
As consultations have shown, the creation of the EU patent should not be  a goal in itself. The 
EU patent needs to be accessible for all Euro pean businesses, including SMEs. This will 
require translation arrangements which are co st-effective, simplified and legally secure. 
Cost-effective. The translation arrangements need to a void high costs to make the EU patent 
attractive for innovative businesses. In particul ar, the EU patent system must be competitive 
with the patent systems in ot her major economies of the world. 
Simplified.  The translation arrangements must cons ider the impact on accessibility of the 
patent system to innovators. The fundamental obj ective of the patent system – which is to 
encourage innovation through offering an exclusive right (limited in  time) in exchange for full 
disclosure of the invention for the disseminatio n of technological info rmation in different 
languages – must be balanced against costs. 
Legally secure.  The translation arrangements must ensure legal certainty. Only the text in a 
language in which an EU patent is granted sh ould have legal value in order to avoid legal 
risks related to errors in translations. Transla tions, especially machine translations should not 
have any legal effect and be for information purposes only. 
These objectives are summarised in Figure 6  below. 
                                                 
45 Europe 2020 "A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth" - COM(2010) 2020. 
46 http://www.proinno-europe.eu/sites/defau lt/files/newsroom/2010/02/I981-DG%20ENTR-
Report%20RIS%20(Web).pdf.  
EN 17   EN  
Figure 6  – Hierarchy of objectives for trans lation arrangements for the EU patent  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 Improvement of Framework 
Conditions for Innovation 
Single EU patent and 
Specialised Patent Court 
Cost-effective, simplified and legally secure 
translation arrangements for the EU patent Operational Specific General Objectives level 
 
4. POLICY OPTIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THEIR IMPACTS  
4.1. Introduction 
All policy options chosen and analysed  are based on the following principles: 
1) Central filing of translat ions and electronic publication. Any translation to be filed at 
the time of grant shall be filed centrally at the EPO, which shall be in charge of the electronic publication of the EU patent in the language of proceedings and any translation of the claims. 
No requirement relating to professional repr esentation going beyond Article 133 EPC shall be 
imposed on patent proprietors for filing the translations.  
The implementation of this principle alone will entail a considerable improvement as 
compared to the current situation (in terms of cost reduction and simplification). It conforms 
to the Commission's overall administrative burde n reduction exercise aiming at freeing up and 
redirecting business resources in order to  enhance the competitiveness of innovative 
businesses in the Member States. 
2) Automatic machine translations. The development of automatic machine translation 
(AMT) programs for patent documents is essent ial in order to improve the dissemination of 
technological information for researchers through out the EU, as well as giving the EU patent 
a truly multilingual character. A project in this field has been underway at the EPO using English as pivot language to translate between German, French, Spanish, Italian, Swedish and 
Portuguese. Other languages are in preparati on. The Commission along with the EPO is also 
supporting a project for machine translations  (Patent Language Translations Online, 
PLuTO)
47, which involves developing translati on software on the basis of patent 
                                                 
47 Information available at http://cordis.europa.eu/home_en.html.  
EN 18   EN documentation covering all offici al languages of the EU Member  States over the next five 
years. The creation of the EU patent would necessitate the acceleration of work and the 
rolling out of a full programme as quickly as possible. Automatic machine translations would be available free of charge for information purposes only and woul d have no legal effect
48.  
The availability of a fully-fledged AMT system promises significant improvements for users 
monitoring the content of new pa tent applications in foreign languages. As mentioned above, 
innovative businesses need to k eep abreast of the latest tec hnological developments in their 
field by monitoring new patent applications fi led by their competitors – which are published 
18 months after the date of f iling but only in the language of proceedings before the EPO. 
AMT will enable instant access to these applications for all users. 
3) Full translation in case of dispute.  In the case of a dispute relating to an EU patent, the 
patent proprietor shall provide, at  his/her expense and at the reque st of an alleged infringer, a 
full translation of the patent into an offici al language of the Member State in which the 
alleged infringement took place or in which the alleged infringer is dom iciled. It is estimated 
that less than 1% of all patents become subject to litigation during their term. 
4) Reimbursement of costs.  An application for an EU pate nt may be filed in any language49. 
Where the language of filing is not an official  EPO language, a translation of the application 
must be provided, within a prescribed time peri od, so that the application can be processed by 
the EPO. If a natural or legal person having hi s/her residence or principal place of business 
within a Member State that does not have as an official language among the language of proceedings before the EPO files an application for an EU patent in the official language of 
his/her Member State, the cost s of translation shall be born e by the system. This would be 
established under the implementing provisions set by a Select Committee of the Administrative Council of the EPO composed of representative s from the EU and all Member 
States. Reimbursement of costs would apply in th e same way across all options investigated in 
this impact assessment and would be cove red by fees collected after EU patents. 
Implementation of this system is therefor e not intended to impact on the EU budget. 
The following options will be explored: Base-line scenario – The Commission does not  propose any translation arrangements for the 
EU patent. 
Option 1  – EU patents are processed, granted and published in English. 
Option 2  – EU patents are processe d, granted and published in one of the three working 
languages of the EPO; the claims are translated  into the other two wo rking languages of the 
EPO. 
Option 3  – EU patents are processe d, granted and published in one of the three working 
languages of the EPO; the claims are translat ed into the four other most commonly spoken 
languages in the EU. 
                                                
 
48 An automatic machine translation can be requ ested free of charge via the esp@cenet portal 
http://ep.espacenet.com/. Gateway can be the EPO, the Commission or any national patent office of the 
Member States, in the respective language. Once a relevant patent document has been identified, the user must select the target language for the transla tion and click on the button "Translate this text". The 
translation will be generated within 30 to 60 seconds. 
49 This is prescribed by Article 5 of the Pate nt law Treaty 2000. See also Article 14(2) EPC. 
EN 19   EN Option 4  – EU patents are processe d, granted and published in one of the three working 
languages of the EPO; the claims are translated  into the other official languages of the EU 
Member States. 
The following analysis of the policy options concentrates on the main economic impacts 
relating to the scope of this exercise. The an alysis will assess the economic impacts of the 
different policy options on the various users of the patent system, namely natural or legal 
persons applying for patents in Europe. In particular, we assess impacts on the following 
groups: 
– The analysis separately assesse s impacts on the users of the pa tent system in general and 
SMEs in particular.  
– Impact on European innovators in general whose inventions may or may not be protected 
by patents is also analysed.  
– Another group affected are the patent info rmation users, namely those following 
technological developments by means of avai lable patent informa tion (including those 
users whose technology may potentially  infringe existing patents). 
– Finally, we also include an a ssessment of social impacts on prof essional services related to 
translations, including services by patent tran slators and patent atto rneys mainly dealing 
with translations. 
Considering the narrow scope of the proposal, impacts are focused on the effects of the 
translation arrangements for the EU patent . 
4.2. Base-line scenario – The Commission does not propose any translation 
arrangements for the EU patent 
4.2.1.  Description 
The base-line scenario  is that no action is taken: the Commission does not propose any 
regulation establishing language a rrangements for the EU patent. 
The base-line scenario could see further Memb er States acceding to the London Agreement. 
Accession is, however, not only optional but also a lengthy and complex process as 
parliamentary approval procedures must ta ke place in each country. Accession by all 
remaining 17 Member States is unlikely to ha ppen, even in the long run. There are several 
Member States that have not expressed any intention to accede to the London Agreement. 
4.2.2.  Analysis 
In order for the EU patent to come into existence, the Council must adopt a Regulation on the 
translation arrangements for the EU pate nt, on a proposal by the Commission. If the 
Commission does not present a proposal on transl ation arrangements, the EU patent will not 
come into existence. This will amount to a de facto  withdrawal of the Commission proposal 
of 1 August 2000. This is contra dictory to the Conclusions a nd General Approach adopted by 
the Council on 4 December 2009 and to the Co mmission's recent Europe 2020 Strategy which 
highlights the creation of the EU patent in the "Innovation Union" Flagship Initiative. 
EN 20   EN The base-line scenario further implies renounc ing on addressing the shortcomings of the 
current European patent system with its high costs caused by tran slation and validation 
requirements, as well as its negative impact on the functioning of the In ternal Market due to 
fragmentation resulting from patent  proprietors' validation practices.  
As far as further potential accessions to th e London Agreement are c oncerned, it should be 
kept in mind that, among the seventeen Memb er States which are not parties to the London 
Agreement, only four (AT, BE, IE and MT) have  an official language in common with one of 
the working languages of the EPO. The other thir teen may require a tran slation of the claims 
into their national language. It follows that, even if it is assumed that all EU Member States would accede to the London Agreement in the l ong run, the eventual language arrangement 
for the European patent would resemble the language arrangement agreed in the 2003 
common political approach should the patent pr oprietor seek protection in all EU Member 
States. As mentioned, this approach was rejected  by all users of the patent system in Europe. 
Worse still, the London Agreement fails to addre ss the requirement that translations must be 
filed at the national patent offices , with the associated costs and complexity. 
Beyond a slight drop in translation costs re sulting from further accessions to the London 
Agreement and further development of electroni c machine translation programs, this option 
would provide no additional benefit to users of the patent system. 
Table 1
 – Expected impact of the baseline scenario 
Users of patent 
system Policy 
Option 
Overall SMEs Innovators in 
general Patent 
information 
users Professional services 
related to 
translations 
Baseline 
scenario 0 0 0 0 0 
Magnitude of impact compared with th e base-line scenario: ++ strongly positive;  + positive, -- strongly negative; 
- negative. 
 
4.3. Option 1 – EU patent processed,  granted and published in English 
4.3.1.  Description 
In any proceedings relating to the EU patent be fore the EPO, English sh all be the language of 
proceedings50. The EU patent shall be granted in that language, a nd no further translation 
shall be required. The EU patent (claims, desc ription and any drawing) shall be published on 
the European publication se rver in English only. 
                                                 
50 This would be without prejudice to the applicant's right to file the application in any language (Article 5 
Patent Law Treaty; Article 14(2) EPC). A translation of the application into English would have to be 
filed within a prescribed time period. 
EN 21   EN 4.3.2.  Analysis 
Overall, as compared to the base-line scen ario where an EU patent would not become 
available, this option could have a positive impact  on users of the patent system in Europe. As 
no translation would be required a ny more – neither at the time of  grant, nor after grant – this 
Option could result in significant cost advantag es and simplification if only the translation 
requirements are considered. Particular benefits  would accrue to users that currently file 
European patent applications in English in any event as the requirement to translate the claims 
into French and German at the time of grant would disappear. However, an important proviso 
needs to be made as Option 1 would have a ne gative impact on many European users, in 
particular European SMEs that currently file European patent applications in French and 
German.  
The possibility to apply and have applications pr ocessed in French and German is widely used 
by applicants originating from  Europe: around 48% of all a pplications orig inating from 
Europe are filed in French or German at the EPO51.  
Figure 7– Filing language of European patent applications (European applicants) 
Filing language of EP applications 2009 (European 
applicants)
English
45%
German
39%French
9%Others
7%English German French Others
 
Source: internal EPO data 
The vast majority of these applications are f iled by French and German  applicants, but also 
other European applicants – from Austria, Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland – file and 
have their applications processed in  French and German at the EPO. 
Option 1 would result in a profound change to the tried and tested three-language regime of 
the EPO. The flexibility of the existing langua ge regime – which allows a choice between 
English, French and German as the language of  proceedings before the EPO – would not be 
available for EU patent applications. This woul d impact on users currently filing in French 
and German. During proceedings before the EPO,  all communication with the EPO – be it in 
writing or orally – would need to take plac e in English. In case of opposition proceedings, 
companies would incur additional tr anslation costs as all relevant documents would have to be 
translated into English. Oral proceedings at the EPO would lik ewise be held in English only. 
                                                 
51 Internal EPO data, 2009. 
EN 22   EN As a consequence, companies currently usin g French or German as the language of 
proceedings before the EPO would have to ma ke significant practice changes for processing 
EU patent applications in English. In addition, representatives of thes e applicants would be 
required to undergo intensive retr aining to act before the EPO in English, including the filing 
of amendments during the examination process.  This would result in significant additional 
costs and complexities and loss of flexibility for users currently using French or German as is 
the case for about half of the patents granted to European co mpanies. By introducing such a 
change compared to the current system, the EU  patent may be less attractive to companies 
currently among the most intensive users of the patent syst em. The EU patent may therefore 
not bring the expected benefits  as its use could be low for companies currently not using 
English. 
Other groups affected, including patent informa tion users who would only have EU patents in 
a single language and providers of professional services relate d to translations, would be 
negatively impacted. Only translators with English as a mother tongue would be positively affected as all applications for EU patents as  well as all documents relating to proceedings 
before the EPO would need to be translated into English. 
Table 2
 – Expected impact of Option 1 
Users of patent 
system Policy 
Option 
Overall SMEs Innovators in 
general Patent 
information 
users Professional services 
related to translations 
Option 1 + - + - -- 
Magnitude of impact compared with th e base-line scenario: ++ strongly positive;  + positive, -- strongly negative; 
- negative. 
 
Table 3 : Validation Costs under Option 1 – Cost Savings Compared to Baseline Scenario 
 Costs in EUR (for 
coverage in 27 Member States) Costs in EUR of 
baseline scenario (for average patent covering only 5 Member States) Costs in EUR of 
patent covering all Member States under baseline scenario 
Validation costs per patent Nil (excluding costs for 
applicants filing in DE and FR changing work 3400 24 000 
EN 23   EN practices to EN) 
Application and 
validation costs per patent 5500
52 8900 29500 
Total Validation 
Costs, if 60000 patents are validated each year  102 million (50% EU 
patents) 
51 million (75% EU 
patents) 204 million 1.44 billion 
Total Application 
and Validation Costs, if 60000 patents are validated each year  432 million (50% EU 
patents) 
381 million (75% EU 
patents) 534 million 1.77 billion 
 
4.4. Option 2 – EU patent processed, gran ted and published in one of the three 
working languages of the EPO; translat ion of the claims into the other two 
working languages of the EPO 
4.4.1.  Description  
This option corresponds to the current  regime applicable under the EPC: 
• in any proceedings relating to the EU patent application before the EPO, one of the three 
working languages of the EPO sha ll be the language of proceedings; 
• the EU patent shall be granted in the language of proceedings; 
• at the time when the EU patent is granted, th e patent proprietor shal l supply to the EPO a 
translation of the claims into the two wo rking languages of the EPO other than the 
language of proceedings. 
The following shall be published on the European publication server: 
• the EU patent (claim, description and any dr awing) in the language  of proceedings, and 
• the translation of the claims in the two working languages of the EPO other than the 
language of proceedings. 
4.4.2.  Analysis 
Overall, as compared to the base-line scen ario where an EU patent would not become 
available, this option would have a positive impa ct on users of the patent system in Europe. 
By doing away with all translations after grant and associated validation requirements, this 
                                                 
52 Covers application, search, examination, grant and renewal fees up to an including the 5th year of the 
patent. 
EN 24   EN option results in significant cost  reductions and simp lification for all users of the patent 
system.  
The translation costs under th is option would amount to a pproximately 680 EUR per patent53. 
This corresponds to the current average cost of the translati on of the claims into the two 
working languages of the EPO other than the la nguage of proceedings (Article 14(6) EPC).  
Option 2 corresponds to what the Commission suggested in its in itial proposal for a 
Regulation on the Community patent with respect to manual translations54. This proposal did 
not find sufficient support in th e Council prior to adoption of the common political approach 
of 2003. Subsequently, the availabi lity of automatic machine tran slations in all EU languages 
has been added as a new element. On this basis,  a large majority of Member States would be 
prepared to consider not requiri ng manual translation of claims. 
In contrast with Option 1, it s hould be emphasised that Option 2 would not affect the language 
regime of the EPC and thus would not entail  any change for applicants; the translation 
requirement at the time of grant would be kept  at the minimum required today for a European 
patent. 
This option would result in bene fits for most groups affected by the measure, including all 
users of the patent system (as well as SMEs),  innovators in general and patent information 
users. Only providers of prof essional services related to tr anslations would be negatively 
affected as translations requirements after grant and associated costs would disappear. 
Table 4  – Expected impact of Option 2 
Users of patent 
system Policy 
Option 
Overall SMEs Innovators in 
general Patent 
information 
users Professional services 
related to translations 
Option 2 ++ ++ ++ + -- 
Magnitude of impact compared with th e base-line scenario: ++ strongly positive;  + positive, -- strongly negative; 
- negative 
Table 5 : Validation Costs under Option 2 – Cost Savings Compared to Baseline Scenario 
 Costs in EUR (for 
coverage in 27 Member States) Costs of baseline 
scenario (for average patent covering only 5 Member States) Costs of patent 
covering in 27 Member States under baseline scenario 
Validation costs per patent 680 3400 24 000 
Application and 6180 8900 29500 
                                                 
53 4 pages of claims x 85 EUR/page x 2 languages = 680 EUR. 
54 Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Community patent - COM(2000) 412. 
EN 25   EN validation costs per 
patent 
Total Validation Costs, if 60000 patents are validated each year  122,4 million (50% EU 
patents) 
81,6 million (75% EU 
patents) 204 million 1.44 billion 
Total Application 
and Validation Costs, if 60000 
patents are 
validated each year  452,4 million (50% EU 
patents) 
411,6 million (75% EU 
patents) 534 million 1.77 billion 
 
4.5. Option 3 – EU patent processed, gran ted and published in one of the three 
working languages of the EP O; translation of the clai ms into the four other 
most commonly spoken languages in the EU; one translation of the claims (at 
the choice of the patent proprietor ) shall have limited legal effect 
4.5.1.  Description 
This option follows, for the granting procedure, the current regime applicable to European 
patent applications and adds at the time when the EU patent is granted, the requirement that 
the claims be translated into the four  other most commonly spoken EU languages: 
• in any proceedings relating to the EU patent before the EPO, one of the three working 
languages of the EPO shall be the language of proceedings; 
• the EU patent shall be granted in the language of proceedings; 
• at the time when the EU patent is granted, the patent proprietor shall supply a translation of 
the claims into the four other most commonl y spoken EU languages (that is, two working 
languages of the EPO other than the language  of proceedings and the two other most 
spoken languages, namely Italian and Spanish).  
The following shall be published on the European publication server: 
• the EU patent (claim, description and any dr awing) in the language  of proceedings, and 
• the translation of the claims in the four  most commonly spoken languages of the EU. 
4.5.2.  Analysis 
This option builds on Option 2 analysed above but adds two additional translations of claims 
into the most spoken languages in the EU. Compared to the ba se-line scenario where an EU 
patent would not become available, Option 3 (equally to Option 2) would generally have a 
positive impact on users of the patent system in Europe. It would result in significant simplification of the system as well as cost reductions for all users. 
EN 26   EN Compared to Option 2, Option 3 would reinforce the multilingual character of the EU patent. 
However, the direct translation costs under th is option would amount to approximately 1 360 
EUR per patent55 and would be twice as much as under Option 2. By contrast, compared to 
Option 4, which would require at  least twenty translations, Option 3 would still be more 
affordable to all users of the patent system. Pa tent information users would also benefit from 
the publication by the EPO of the claims in th e most spoken EU languages. Compared to 
Option 4, professional services providers woul d experience a negative impact, but less than 
under Option 2 (as translations would be needed into the four most widely spoken languages, 
but would not be required for the other EU languages). 
Table 6  – Expected impact of Option 3 
Users of patent 
system Policy 
Option 
Overall SMEs Innovators in 
general Patent 
information 
users Professional services 
related to translations 
Option 3 ++ + ++ ++ - 
Magnitude of impact compared with th e base-line scenario: ++ strongly positive;  + positive, -- strongly negative; 
- negative 
Table 7 : Validation Costs under Option 3 – Cost Savings Compared to Baseline Scenario 
 Costs in EUR (for 
coverage in 27 Member States) Costs of baseline 
scenario (for average patent covering only 5 Member States) Costs of patent 
covering in 27 Member States under baseline scenario 
Validation costs per patent 1360 3400 24 000 
Application and 
validation costs per patent 6860 8900 29500 
Total Validation 
Costs, if 60000 patents are validated each year  144,8 million (50% EU 
patents) 
112,2 million (75% EU 
patents) 204 million 1.44 billion 
Total Application 
and Validation Costs, if 60000 patents are validated each year  474,8 million (50% EU 
patents) 
444,2 million (75% EU 
patents) 534 million 1.77 billion 
                                                 
55 4 languages x 4 pages of claims x 85 EUR = 1360 EUR. 
EN 27   EN  
4.6. Option 4 – EU patent processed, gran ted and published in one of the three 
working languages of the EPO; translation of the claims into the other official 
languages of the EU Member States  
4.6.1.  Description 
This option corresponds to the common po litical approach of 3 March 2003: 
• for the pre-grant phase, the current regime a pplicable to European patent applications 
would apply: in any proceedings relating to the EU patent before the EPO, one of the three 
working languages of the EPO sha ll be the language of proceedings; 
• the EU patent shall be granted in the language of proceedings; 
• at the time when the EU patent is granted, the patent proprietor shall supply a translation of 
the claims into the official languages of the EU Member States other than the language of 
proceedings (Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Du tch, Estonian, Finnish, Greek, Hungarian, 
Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Portuguese, Romania n, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish, 
Swedish as well as the two working languages of the EPO other than the language of proceedings)
56. 
The following shall be published on the European publication server: 
• the EU patent (claims, descri ption and any drawing) in th e language of proceedings, and 
• the translation of the claims in the above twenty official languages of the EU Member 
States57. 
4.6.2.  Analysis 
Contrary to the base-line scenario, this option would make the EU pate nt available, but it 
would result in high translation costs. The benef its of the EU patent as a single EU title would 
thus be counter-balanced by the losses result ing from high translation costs. Although only 
the translation of claims and not the whole pate nt would be required, su ch translations would 
still be needed into twenty official  languages in the EU Member States.  
Translation costs under this option w ould amount to 6 800 EUR per patent.  
Stakeholders have unequivocally rejected the Council's common political approach of 3 
March 2003 due to the unsatisfactory translati on arrangements for the Community patent. The 
view of users, in particular SMEs, is clear – the EU patent would be too expensive for them. 
This is supported by the calculations in Table 9  showing that the EU patent under this option 
would have higher translation costs than  the current average European patent. 
                                                 
56 As Ireland and Malta do not currently require a translation of the European patent into respectively Irish 
and Maltese, it is assumed that they will not require a translation of the claims of the EU patent into their languages. 
57 The 2 working languages of the EP O other than the language of pr oceedings and 18 other official 
languages of the EU Member States. 
EN 28   EN Compliance with such translation requirements is not  only very costly for the users, but is also 
very complex. A fixed time period would need  to be set for the submission of such 
translations since only when al l translations would have been filed could the EU patent take 
effect. Currently the EPC foresees four months  for the submission of two translations of 
claims. It is clear that the translations should be provided as quickly as  possible in order to 
fulfil their function for the dissemination of te chnology. However, twenty translations would 
require a longer period considering as well that many of the languages are relatively 
uncommon and the translation re sources are limited. Users would be confronted with the 
management of these numerous translations, which would add additional costs and would 
make the EU patent even less attractive. Furthe rmore, decisions affecting the unitary character 
of the EU patent would have to be made, for in stance for the situation where a translation into 
one of the EU official languages is not filed. 
Presuming that the translations would be availa ble very early (which, as explained, would be 
very burdensome for the users), patent informa tion would certainly be more easily accessible 
in more European languages. Presuming that the EU patent would be at all used in case of 
such high translation costs, prov iders of professional services related to translations would 
also benefit, although this could raise que stions over whether th ere would be enough 
specialised patent translat ors into certain languages. 
Table 8  – Expected impact of Option 4 
Users of patent 
system Policy 
Option 
Overall SMEs Innovators in 
general Patent 
information 
users Professional services 
related to translations 
Option 4 -- -- - + ++ 
Magnitude of impact compared with th e base-line scenario: ++ strongly positive;  + positive, -- strongly negative; 
- negative 
 
Table 9 : Validation Costs under Option 4 – Cost Savings Compared to Baseline Scenario 
 Costs in EUR (for 
coverage in 27 Member States) Costs of baseline 
scenario (for average patent covering only 5 Member States) Costs of patent 
covering in 27 Member States under baseline scenario 
Validation costs per patent 6800 3400 24 000 
Application and 
validation costs per patent 12400 8900 29500 
Total Validation 
Costs, if 60000 306 million (50% EU 
patents) 204 million 1.44 billion 
EN 29   EN patents are 
validated each year  357 million (75% EU 
patents) 
Total Application and Validation Costs, if 60000 patents are validated each year  636 million (50% EU 
patents) 
687 million (75% EU 
patents) 534 million 1.77 billion 
 
5. COMPARING THE OPTIONS  
Table 10  below provides a summary of expected  impacts of the analysed options. 
Table 10  – Comparing the impacts of the options 
Users of patent 
system Policy 
Option 
Overall SMEs Innovators in 
general Patent 
information 
users Professional 
services related to 
translations 
Option 0 
(base-line 
scenario) 0 0 0 0 0 
Option 1 + - + - -- 
Option 2 ++ ++ ++ + -- 
Option 3 ++ + ++ ++ - 
Option 4 -- -- - + ++ 
Magnitude of impact compared with th e base-line scenario: ++ strongly positive;  + positive, -- strongly negative; 
- negative. 
 
The analysis of Option 1 has s hown that although this option may seem as highly simplified 
and cost-effective at first glance, it would result in difficulties for the users who have 
accustomed themselves to working in either Germ an or French. By removing the flexibility of 
the current system enjoyed by many EU busin esses, Option 1 could impact on the global 
competitiveness of European industry, especially for SMEs. The limitation to only one language is also inappropriate as it does not ta ke into account the multilingual character of the 
future EU patent. 
Option 2 would therefore be more  appropriate as it maintains the procedural linguistic regime 
of the successfully functioning single pre-gran t system provided by th e EPC. Furthermore, 
this option is also cost-effective (minimum tran slation costs), simplified (similar to the current 
pre-grant stage with a drastically simplifie d post-grant stage) and legally secure.  
EN 30   EN Option 3 is equally simplified and legally secure  as Option 2, but results in translation costs 
per unit that are twice as high. As demonstrated by the analysis , the total savings would also 
be significantly higher under Option 2 than under Option 3.  
On the contrary, by requiring the translation of cl aims into all EU official languages, Option 4 
would put considerable financial costs and risks on the users of the system. It would thus be 
neither cost-effective, nor si mplified, nor legally secure. 
Table 11  below ranks the options as regards the objective to be achieved.
EN 31   EN Table 11  - Ranking the options  
 Option 1  Option 2  Option 3  Option 4 
Simplified + ++ ++ - 
Cost 
effective + ++ + -- 
Legally 
secure ++ ++ ++ - 
Magnitude of impact of the criteria compared : ++ strongly positive; + positive, -- strongly 
negative; - negative;  
 
6. MONITORING AND EVALUATIONS  
The creation of an EU patent  intends to improve the cond itions for innovation in Europe. 
Innovation activity is measured by INNO-Metr ics, comprising the European Innovation 
Scoreboard (EIS) and Eurobarometer. Patentin g activity is one element used in measuring 
current innovation activity. In a ddition, while maintaining the targ et of investing 3% of GDP 
in R&D, the Europe 2020 Strategy commits to developing a new indicator to track innovation. 
This should take into account the creation of th e EU patent and its take up between industrial 
sectors, businesses sizes and Member States. 
The EU patent intends to coexist alongside the Eu ropean patent and nation al patent titles. The 
relative patenting levels between  these rights should therefore be monitored to ensure that 
these options are realistic for innovators according to their i ndividual needs. This can be 
achieved by analysing patenti ng statistics published by patent offices in Europe in their 
Annual Reports. This will therefore provide further evidence of the effectiveness of the EU patent and the necessity for revision, either in the Regulation for the EU patent or associated 
instruments such as the fees, or for the Regul ation concerning the translation arrangements.