EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 13.4.2011 
SEC(2011) 482 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
 
 
Accompanying document to the 
 
Proposal for a  
 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPE AN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 
 
implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent 
protection 
 
and 
 
Proposal for a  
 
COUNCIL REGULATION 
 
implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent 
protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements 
  
{COM(2011) 215 final} 
{COM(2011) 216 final} 
{SEC(2011) 483 final} 
EN 2   EN Table of Content 
1. Introduction................................................................................................................ .. 4 
2. Procedural issues and consulta tion of interested parties.............................................. 5 
3. Context ..................................................................................................................... .... 8 
3.1. The economic role of patents ....................................................................................... 8 3.2. The existing patent systems in Europe....................................................................... 10 3.2.1. National patent systems.............................................................................................. 10 3.2.2. The existing European patent system......................................................................... 10 3.2.3. The Patent Co-opera tion Treaty (PCT)...................................................................... 12 
4. Problem definition...................................................................................................... 12 4.1. Problem 1: High costs related to the tr anslation and publication of patents.............. 14 
4.2. Problem 2: Differences in the maintena nce of patents in the Member States ........... 18 
4.3. Problem 3: Administrative complexity of  registering transfer s, licences and other 
rights......................................................................................................................... .. 20 
4.4. Consequence: EU-wide patent  protection is expensive ............................................. 21 
4.5. Overall im pacts .......................................................................................................... 2 3 
4.5.1. Fragmentation of the Single Market .......................................................................... 23 4.5.2. Hindrance to innovation............................................................................................. 23 4.5.3. Hindrance to growth and competitiveness ................................................................. 24 5. Subsidiarity ................................................................................................................ 24 
6. Objectives.................................................................................................................. . 24 
7. Policy options and analysis ........................................................................................ 25 7.1. Option 1 (Base-line scenario) – the Commission takes no action ............................. 26 
7.2. Option 2 – the Commission continues to work with the other institutions towards an 
EU patent covering 27 Member States....................................................................... 27 
7.3. Option 3 - the Commission presents propos als for regulation implementing enhanced 
cooperation................................................................................................................. 29 
7.3.1. Sub-option 3.1 - the Commission proposes transl ation arrangements applicable in the 
area of unitary patent prot ection that correspond to its proposal of 30 June 2010 .... 32 
7.3.2. Sub-option 3.2 – the Commission proposes transl ation arrangements applicable in the 
area of unitary patent protection base d on its proposal of 30 June 2010 and 
incorporating elements of a compromise  proposal discussed by the Council ........... 34 
8. Comparing the options and their impacts................................................................... 36 
EN 3   EN 8.1. Impacts on patent holders........................................................................................... 36 
8.2. Impact on the internal market and on stakeholders (other than patentees)................ 38 
8.3. Social and environmental impacts ............................................................................. 39 8.4. Political feasibility ..................................................................................................... 40 
9. Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 41 10. ANNEX...................................................................................................................... 42 
EN 4   EN Disclaimer: This report commits only the Commissi on's services involved in its preparation 
and does not prejudge the final form of any  decision to be taken by the Commission. 
1. INTRODUCTION  
Patents are an important enabler for economic growth through innovati on. Intangible assets1 
are rapidly becoming the economically most im portant aspect of business – in 2009 they 
accounted for over 80% of the global market valu e of companies in the S&P 500 (a US list of 
500 large publicly traded companies)2. Investment in research (R&D) accounts for 1.9% of 
GDP in the EU3, and an effective patent system is esse ntial to translate th at investment into 
economic growth. An increased rate of i nnovation brings benefits to consumers by 
introducing new products to the market and creating competition.  
Today patent protection in Eur ope is fragmented. While the European Patent Office (EPO) 
ensures uniformity in granting patents under the European Patent Conven tion (EPC), the need 
for a coherent system of patent protection in  the internal market has been apparent for 
decades. Efforts made since the 1970s, however, have not led to success.  
The Europe 2020 Strategy4 identified the creation of an economy based on knowledge and 
innovation as a priority that is ne cessary to turn the EU into a smart, sustainable and inclusive 
economy delivering high levels of employment , productivity and social  cohesion. It also 
proposed a target of 3% of the EU's  GDP to be invested in R&D by 2020. 
The Innovation Union, adopted in 2010 as a flagsh ip initiative of th e Europe 2020 Strategy, 
built on this and demanded that th e "remaining barriers for entr epreneurs to bring 'ideas to 
market' must be removed. As an immediate st ep, agreement should be reached on the EU 
patent before the end of the year"5. 
In December 2010 the Single Market Act6 also highlighted that European businesses, 
inventors and creators must be ab le to develop within the intern al market that is as conducive 
as possible to innovation and creativity, in or der to better face in ternational competition. 
Both the Europe 2020 Strategy and the Single  Market Act are seek ing to improve the 
framework conditions for business to innovate by creating unitary patent protection in the EU 
Member States complemented by a unified European patent litigation system.  
In spite of broad recognition of  the competitive disadvantage European business faces in the 
absence of unitary patent pr otection, in December 2010 the Competitiveness Council had to 
confirm7 that there were insurmountable difficulti es that made the establishment of such 
protection in the entire Europ ean Union impossible to attain within a reasonable period. This 
statement was followed by a request from twel ve Member States to  establish enhanced 
cooperation in the area of unitary patent pr otection. The Commission subsequently submitted 
                                                 
1 Intangible assets are assets that are not physical in  nature. Typical examples are: patents, trademarks, 
copyrights, goodwill, etc. 
2 http://www.oceantomo.com/productsandservices/investments/indexes/ot300   
3 Eurostat, 2008 data 
4 COM(2010) 2020 final 
5 COM(2010) 546 final 
6 COM(2010) 608 final/2 
7 See press release 17668/10 
EN 5   EN a proposal8 to the Council for authorising enhanced cooperation that was followed by the 
request of another 13 Member States to join the cooperation. The European Parliament gave 
its consent to the launch of e nhanced cooperation on 15 February9 and the Competitiveness 
Council adopted the authorising decision on 10 March10. As a consequence, this impact 
assessment report (IA) has to take into accoun t the conditions already set by the Council's 
authorising decision.  
A possible future EU patent system has two main  elements. The first one is the unitary patent 
protection that would allow for the grant of a Eu ropean patent having unitary character, in the 
best-case scenario, in all Member States of the EU. A key component of the unitary patent 
protection is the translation arrangements that  are given special atte ntion in this impact 
assessment report. This IA, therefore, will ex amine the problems arising from the current 
patent protection system in EU and ways to impr ove its accessibility and efficiency in order to 
promote innovation and growth11.  
The second element of the possible future EU pate nt system is the unifi ed patent litigation 
system. This IA report, however, does not examin e this issue as it follows a parallel work 
stream and will be addressed in a different legal instrument, following the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union
12. 
2. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
The Commission presented its proposal for a Council Regulati on on the Community patent13 
on 1 August 2000. It was based on Article 308 of the EC Treaty that required unanimity for its 
adoption in the Council, following the consultati on of the European Parliament. The proposal 
covered all elements necessary  for the creation of a single EU-wide patent, including the 
translation arrangements. Whilst the Council adopted a common political approach on the 
Community patent14 in March 2003, no further progress t ook place in the years that followed. 
In January 2006, the Commission launched a broad consultation on the future patent policy in 
Europe15. More than 2500 replies we re received from a variet y of stakeholders, including 
businesses in all sectors of th e economy, business and SME associ ations, patent practitioners, 
public authorities and academics. Respondents were  asking for a European patent system that 
provides incentives for innovation, ensures the di ffusion of scientific knowledge, facilitates 
technology transfer, is available to all players in the market a nd is legally certain. The replies 
clearly showed stakeholders' disappointment w ith the lack of progress in the Community 
patent project. In particular, n early all respondents (the  users of the patent system) rejected the 
translation arrangements included in the Council's 2003 common political approach which 
                                                 
8 COM(2010) 790 final 
9 P7_TA(2011)0054 
10 Council Decision 2011/167/EU of 10 March 2011 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the 
creation of unitary patent protection, OJ. L 76, 22.3.2011, p. 53.   
11 The IA uses the term "unitary patent protection" in order to avoid pre-empting policy choices as regards 
the ways to achieve the objectives. In references to historical documents and external contributions, 
however, the terms "Community patent" and "EU pa tent" will be used. The term "European patent" 
refers to any patent granted by the European Patent Office. 
12 A-1/09 
13 Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Community patent, COM(2000) 412 final 
14 Council document 6874/03 
15 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 .  
EN 6   EN laid down that the patent holder would have to supply a translation of the claims (having legal 
effect) into all official Community languages.  
Stakeholders expressed an overall support fo r a "unitary, affordable and competitive" 
Community patent. This message was repeated  at a public hearing held on 12 July 2006, 
where a large variety of stakeholders stated th eir support for the crea tion of a truly unitary 
high quality patent. They, howev er, underlined that politi cal compromises should not 
undermine the usefulness of the project. In pa rticular, the representatives of small and 
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) highlighted the importance of modera te patenting costs. 
The Commission adopted the Communication "Enha ncing the patent system in Europe" in 
April 200716. The document outlined the way forward as envisaged by the Commission, 
including the creation of the Community patent and possible solutions for the translation arrangements. Discussions with  stakeholders continued on th e basis of this Communication 
throughout 2008. In October 2008, the Commission and the French Presidency of the Council 
organised a conference on Industr ial Property Rights in Europe
17 and a "European Parliament 
of Enterprises" debate was held. An overwhe lming majority of represented entrepreneurs 
emphasised that the continued lack of a single EU -wide patent was damaging to European 
businesses and called for the creation of the EU patent as soon as possible18. 
The issue of unitary patent protection was also  addressed extensively in the consultation on 
the Small Business Act for Europe that consisted of a range of initiatives targeted to help European SMEs
19. Small and medium-sized businesses identi fied the high leve l of patent fees 
and the legal complexity of the patent system as  major obstacles20. In their submissions to the 
consultation, businesses in general and SME representatives in pa rticular requested a 
significant reduction of the costs of patenting for a future EU patent21. 
Recent position papers from various stakeholde rs refer to the unitary patent protection. 
European business associations, such as BusinessEurope,22 UEAPME23 and Eurochambres24 
confirm that businesses, both large and sma ll, request a simplified, cost-effective and 
accessible EU patent. National business organi sations in many Member States and across 
industry sectors rais e identical issues25. Stakeholders underlined that any solution for the 
unitary patent protection shoul d build on the existing mechan isms for granting patents in 
Europe (see in chapter 3) and necessitate no revision of the European Patent Convention. 
                                                 
16 COM(2007)165 final 
17 Available at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/rights/index_en.htm  
18 Available at http://www.eurochambres.eu  
19 COM(2008) 394 final 
20 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/small-business-act/   
21 UEAPME Expectations on the Proposal for a Eu ropean Small Business Act, available at 
www.ueapme.com . Response to the Consultation on a Small Business Act for Europe, available at 
http://www.eurochambres.eu  
22 Views on key issues of the patent re form debate in Europe, available at http://www.busin esseurope.eu  
23 Position on the recent policy developments on the European Community patent, available at 
http://www.ueapme.com  
24 Position paper on the European Patent System, available at http://www.eurochambres.eu  
25 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 7   EN The Lisbon Treaty introduced a mo re specific legal base for an EU patent system. According 
to Article 118(1) of the Treaty on the Functio ning of the European Union (TFEU), measures 
for the creation of European intellectual propert y rights are to be established by the European 
Parliament and the Council acting under the ordi nary legislative procedure. Article 118(2), 
however, sets out a specific rule for the la nguage arrangements for European intellectual 
property rights that are to be  established under a special legi slative procedure by the Council 
acting unanimously after consulting the European Parliament. It follows that the translation 
arrangements for any EU patent system must be  established by a separate legal instrument. 
In December 2009, the Council adopted conclusions on an "Enhanced patent system for 
Europe"26 and a general approach on the propos al for a Regulation on the EU Patent27. 
Translation arrangements, however, were not c overed due to the abovementioned change in 
the legal base. 
On 30 June 2010 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Regulation on the 
translation arrangements for the EU patent28. The proposal was accompanied by an IA 
report29 analysing various options for the possible translation arrangements. The IA lead to 
the conclusion that the preferable  option remains the translation a rrangements as set out in the 
revised proposal for Community Patent Regulation of 23 May 200830 that provides for a 
simplified and cost-effective language regime. 
Regardless of the significant efforts made by the Belgian Presidency, it was recorded at the 
Competitiveness Council meeting of 10 Novemb er 2010 that no unanimous agreement could 
be reached on the translation arrangements31. On 10 December 2010 the Competitiveness 
Council confirmed32 that there were insurmountable diffi culties that made the establishment 
of unitary patent protection in the entire Eu ropean Union impossible to attain within a 
reasonable period by applying the releva nt provisions of the Treaties. 
On the basis of the request of twelve Member States (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, 
Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands , Poland, Slovenia, Sweden and the United 
Kingdom) the Commission submitted a proposal33 to the Council for authorising enhanced 
cooperation in the area of unitary patent protec tion. All Member States submitted their request 
with the condition that the Commission's upcomi ng legislative proposals will follow the lines 
elaborated during the recent nego tiations in the Counc il. The requests also highlighted that 
translation arrangements should rely on the existing EPO framework. Following the adoption 
of the proposal, Belgium, Austria, Ireland, Port ugal, Malta, Bulgaria, Romania, the Czech 
Republic, Slovakia Hungary, Latvia, Greece a nd Cyprus also reque sted to join the 
cooperation. Altogether 25 Member  States have indicated thei r intention to participate. 
In response to the requests of the Member States, recita l 7 of the Commission's proposal 
makes it clear that unitary pate nt protection throughout the terr itories of the participating 
                                                 
26 Council document 17229/09 
27 Council document 16113/09 Add 1. The change in terminology (from the "Community" to "EU" patent) 
was induced by the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. 
28 COM(2010) 350 final 
29 SEC(2010) 796 
30 Council document 9465/08 
31 Press Release of the Extraordinary Council mee ting "Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry, 
Research and Space)", 16041/10, 10.11.2010. 
32 See press release 17668/10 
33 COM(2010) 790 final 
EN 8   EN Member States should be granted by the EPO. The translation arrangements should be simple, 
cost-effective and allow for the filing of patent applications in any language of the Union. 
Any applicant from the EU should have the righ t to file applications  in their own language. 
However, there should be compensation of the cost s related to the transl ation of applications 
to an official language of the EPO (English, Fr ench and German). Patents should be granted 
only in one language and, other than the translation of the claims in the two other EPO 
languages, no further translations  should be required. Translations  should not have legal effect 
and serve only information purposes. In the case of a dispute, mandatory translation 
obligations should apply to the patent proprietor.  
The European Parliament gave its consent to the launch of enhanced cooperation on 15 
February34 and the Competitiveness Council adopte d the authorising decision on 10 March35. 
In January 2011 a Steering Group was formed to as sist DG Internal Market and Services in 
assessing the impact of the different policy opti ons that have been put forward to solve the 
identified problems. The Steering Group was made up of representatives of the Legal Service, 
the Secretariat-General, DG En terprise and Industry, DG Inform ation Society and Media, DG 
Research and DG Competition. The last meeting of the St eering Group was convened on 3 
February 2011. 
The impact assessment roadmap was pub lished (2011/MARKT/037 and 2011/MARKT/038). 
The IA report was examined by the Impact Assessment Quality Board in written procedure; the Board issued a favourabl e opinion on 25 February 2011. Following the Board's opinion, a 
number of additional information/clarifications were included in the IA, notably: The report better explains why renewal fees are not determin ed by European legislation; it includes new 
calculation of per capita costs and cost saving s when 25 Member States take part in the 
enhanced cooperation; it explains better why the large market size can result in increased 
patenting activity and how it improves the competitiveness of European business. 
3. C
ONTEXT  
3.1. The economic role of patents 
Today's economy is becoming increasingly kno wledge-based. Innovation has a major impact 
on economic growth. The relation between patent  rights and economic growth has not been 
researched extensively, however, the expected re turn from R&D is considered to be a key 
driver of innovation efforts36.  
Patents are an important in strument of innovation policy37 and an effective means to increase 
R&D. They can stimulate innovation through prov iding a limited monopoly in return for the 
broad dissemination of new ideas. A well-designe d patent policy strikes a balance between 
                                                 
34 P7_TA(2011)0054 
35 Council Decision 2011/167/EU. 
36 There is some empirical evidence that in more pa tent intensive industries strengthening patent rights 
resulted in higher growth. See Hu, Albert G. Z. and Png, Ivan P. L., Patent Rights and Economic 
Growth: Cross-Country Evidence (November 12, 2009). CELS 2009 4th Annual Conference on 
Empirical Legal Studies Paper 
37 Other instruments include the public research system or funding research performed by business. See 
Dominique Guellec and Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie: The Economics of the European Patent 
System, Oxford University Press, 2007. 
EN 9   EN the incentive for inventors and the generation of welfare for society38: On the one hand, 
patents guarantee inventors an ex clusive right for the industrial applicati on of their invention. 
This protection comes with a number of limita tions, in particular as regards the length 
(usually 20 years) and the br eadth (scope) of the patent pr otection. On the other hand, the 
publication of the description of the patent ed invention should disseminate knowledge and 
facilitate follow-up inventions. 
Patents mostly generate profits if the inventions are economically exploited either by the 
patent holder or by the licensee, etc. They ar e, therefore, market-oriented instruments that 
allow customers and other market participants to determine the economic value of the patent 
and of the patented inventi on. In some sectors of the eco nomy, depending on the dominant 
business model followed by companies, they are effective means to increase R&D.  
The patent system has a special importance for SMEs as patents can enhance market entry and 
firm creation. Studies highlight th at start-ups often adopt business models that use patents as 
core assets39. While in some cases SMEs may also face barriers to market entry through the 
creation of patent thickets by bigger and more  resourceful companies, they still profit 
from patent systems that efficiently grant them access to enforceable intellectual property 
rights.  In fact, where intellectual property rights are strong and well-enforced, new companies 
are more likely to develop new technologies an d sell it to other firms without incurring high 
costs and risk. But a measurement carried out in eight EU Member States shows that currently 
only 4.8% of the patents are used to create  start-ups and consequently new employment40, i.e. 
this opportunity is not exploited in Europe. Furthermore, particul arly in the aftermath of the 
financial crisis, the possibility of using IP ri ghts as security facilitates SMEs' access to bank 
loans41. 
The importance of and the demand for the European  patent is illustrated by the fact that EU 
applications to the European Patent Office in creased by an average of over 3% per year for 
the period 2000-200842. The total number of applications reached 146 644 in 2008. In 2009, 
however, figures show a relevant decline in a ll major patent offices, except in the US. It 
seems clear that in 2009 the ne gative growth caused by the gl obal economic crisis, led to a 
decrease in patent filings43. Finally, there are approxima tely 130 000 national patent 
applications annually in the EU, many of which are converted to European patent applications 
in the second step (see section 3.2). 
                                                 
38 The key issues in the design of any patent regime are the patent subject matter, the height of the 
inventive step and the breadth of the patent. Other important elements are the amount of damages 
attributed by courts in case of infringements, the conditions for exemptions for research use, etc. See 
Patents and innovation: Trends and policy challenges, OECD, 2004. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/12/24508541.pdf
  
39 Study on evaluating the knowledge economy – what are patents actually worth? The value of patents for 
today's economy and society. Final report, July 23 2006, p.22. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/patent/index_en.htm#studies
  
40 See details in Annex I. 
41 OECD, Intellectual Assets and Value Creation: Synthesis Report, 2008, 
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/36/35/40637101.pdf   
42 Based on applications from the Memb er States; see overview in Annex II. 
43 The total number of patent applications filed w ith the EPO reached 134 542 in 2009. As regards the 
number of granted patents, differing trends could be observed in 2009. While the Korean Intellectual 
Property Office (KIPO) reported a 32% and the EP O a 13% decline, there was an increase of 9% and 
5% in the Japan Patent Office (JPO) and the United States Patent and Tradem ark Office (USPTO). Such 
trends, however, are only partly influenced by the number of applications; the differing grant rates and 
procedure durations also have an impact. See Annex III. 
EN 10   EN 3.2. The existing patent systems in Europe 
The decision whether to file a patent applic ation nationally, regional ly or internationally 
mainly depends on the market targeted by the app licant, the funds that are available for this 
purpose and their proportion to the expected pr ofits. In the EU, patent protection can be 
obtained either through the nati onal patent offices of the Member States or through the 
European Patent Office. 
3.2.1.  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 requirements44), a national patent is granted.  
The protection conferred by a national patent is li mited to the territory of the State concerned. 
45% of European inventors and businesses choose  to file patent applications at a national 
patent office first in order to obtain an early priority45. This proportion is 55% among SMEs46. 
Following a novelty search and a preliminary examination carried out by the national office, the applicant decides whether to pursue or abandon th e national patent app lication, apply for a 
European patent at the EPO, and/or file a pate nt application under the international Patent Co-
operation Treaty (PCT). The application is publishe d 18 months after it is filed. If the national 
patent application is pursued, the national offi ce decides on the grant of the patent or the 
refusal of the application depending on the re sults of its examination. Patents are then 
registered in the nati onal patent register. 
3.2.2.  The existing European patent system 
If the applicant chooses to appl y for a so-called "European pate nt", the application will be 
dealt with by the EPO under the procedures la id down in the European Patent Convention 
(EPC)
47. The EPC was adopted in 1973 and entered into force in 1977. It does not form part 
of the EU legal order, but all EU Member States are C ontracting States to the EPC48.  
The EPC established centralised procedures for the search, examination and grant of 
European patents. On the basis of a single pa tent application processe d in one of the three 
official languages of the EPO (English, French  or German), inventors and businesses can 
obtain a European patent for one or mo re Contracting States to the EPC.  
Any patent application  is published by the EPO 18 months af ter the date of filing, in the 
official language of the EPO in which the application is processed (the language of 
                                                 
44 Patentability requirements in Europe include: the patentable subject matter, novelty, inventive step and 
that the invention is susceptible to industrial application. 
45 Priority right is a time-limited right that is triggered by the first filing of a patent application. It allows 
the applicant to file a subsequent application in another country for the same invention from the time of 
the first filing (the priority date).  N.B. An early national priority also gives inventors extra time to 
develop the idea and assess the feasibility of other (more expensive) options for protection.  
46 Study on the quality of the patent system in Europe, 2011. 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/patent/index_en.htm#studies  
47 http://www.epo.org/patents/law/lega l-texts/html/epc/1973/e/ma1.html   
48 Other larger Contracting States to the EPC incl ude Croatia, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey. 
The European Patent Organisation has 38 members altogether. 
EN 11   EN proceedings). The application (which comprises of the claims, description49 and drawings) is 
thus made available to the public, in electr onic format on the European publication server50.  
Once the patent is granted, it is published by the EPO in the language of proceedings, together 
with a translation of the claims in  the two other official languages51. The authentic text of the 
European patent is the text in the language of proceedings – both before the EPO and in any 
Contracting State to the EPC52. 
A European patent has the same legal effect as a national patent in the Contracting States to 
the EPC in which the patent proprietor desire s protection for their invention. However, the 
European patent does not take effect au tomatically in most Contracting States53. It must first 
be validated in the States in wh ich the patentee wishes protecti on, i.e. the European patent has 
to be converted into a national patent54. Figure 1 below illustrates the application and renewal 
procedures for patent applications  directly filed with the EPO. 
Figure 1  - Application and renewal procedures for pat ent applications directly filed with the EPO 
 
                                                 
49 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). 
50 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 https://data.epo.org/publication-server/?lg=en
. Other platforms maintained by EPO also enable on-line 
access to European patent documents; s ee esp@enet, epoline and Register Plus. 
51 On average, in 2009, a granted European patent was published 43.1 months after the application was 
received, see Annual Repor t of the EPO, 2009. 
http://www.epo.org/about-us/off ice/annual-reports/2009.html   
52 See also Article 70(3) EPC. 
53 The exceptions are France, Ge rmany, Luxembourg and the UK. 
54 The details of this transformation are explained in section 4.1. 
EN 12   EN Source: Harhoff, Hoisl, Reichl, van Pottelsberghe, 2009, "P atent validation at the country level: the role of fees 
and translation costs", Research Policy, November 2009. 
3.2.3.  The Patent Co-operation Treaty (PCT) 
The PCT is an internat ional treaty that ente red into force in 197855. Filing an application 
under the PCT is another method of pr otecting patents in several countries56. While an 
application under the PCT is not  an actual patent applica tion, it extends the potential 
protection given by the priority right57 to a period of 30 months . The PCT application is 
searched by one of the International Search Au thorities (i.e. patent offices designated by the 
World Intellectual Property Organisation - WIPO58). Once the search and the optional 
preliminary examination are completed, the proce dure continues before th e national offices or 
the EPO that decide on granting the patent or refusing the application. Approximately half of 
the European patent applications  are also PCT applications.  
                                                 
55 http://www.wipo.int/pct/en /texts/articles/atoc.htm   
56 All Member States of the EU are signatories to the PCT, it has 142 contracting states altogether (in 
2011). 
57 See footnote 45. The usual length of protection is 12 months. 
58 http://www.wipo.int/portal/index.html.en   
EN 13   EN 4. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
Figure 2  – Problem tree 
 
Since the 1970s the procedure for searching, examining and granting European patents is 
centralised in Europe under the EPC (see sectio n 3.2). This procedure is  well-functioning and 
widely accepted by applicants from Europe and ot her continents. This standardised procedure, 
however, is complemented by post-grant procedures  that are necessary for the patent to take 
effect in the individual Contra cting States to the EPC. These post-grant procedures are 
complex and divergent in Europe. They generate  costs for inventors and businesses that deter 
them from seeking for patent protection in Europe . Therefore, also in line with the request of 
the Member States asking for enhanced cooper ation, this IA report  only looks into the 
problems and possible solutions with respect to  the post-grant stage of patent protection. 
The fragmentation of the patent protection in th e EU has four main aspe cts: high costs related 
to the translation and publication requirements,  diverging rules in relation to renewal fees, 
complex national provisions in relation to regist ering transfers, licences  and other rights and 
the legal uncertainties due to the lack of a uni fied court system. This  chapter will explain 
economic implication and consequences of the first three problems but will not address the 
problems related to litigation. 
EN 14   EN 4.1. Problem 1: High costs related to the translation and publication of patents 
After the grant of European patents, different  validation requirements apply in the Member 
States. For example: 
– the patent holder must file with the nationa l patent office a transl ation of the European 
patent into the official language of the State where protection is desired; 
– the patent holder must pay a publication fee to the national patent office; and 
– the patent holder must comply with various formal requirements rela ting in particular to 
the number of copies to be filed, use of  prescribed forms, and time periods. 
Where the patent holder 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.  
Direct and indirect translation costs can add up to about 40% of  the overall costs of patenting 
in Europe. It has been estimated that a European  patent validated in 13 countries is more than 
ten times more expensive than a patent in the US or Japan59. National laws of most Member 
States require that the patent pr oprietor supplies translations of the patent into the official 
languages of the Member States in which protecti on is sought. The translations must be filed 
with the national patent offices, which shall make them available to the public. Significant costs, red-tape and complexi ty accrue in this process: 
– Costs of translations:  Specialised translators are needed  to translate the technical text 
contained in patents. On average, EUR 85 is charged per page60. The number of pages to 
be translated depends on the specific patent: a patent of typical length contains 15 pages of 
description, 4 pages of clai ms and 1 page of drawings61. 
– Fees charged by patent agents:  Local patent agents often act as intermediaries between the 
patent proprietor and the national patent offi ces where the translations are to be filed62. 
They may offer to arrange for translations or  verify translations carried out by external 
translators, or they may offer to ensure th at formal requirements laid down by national law 
are complied with63. Fees must be paid by the patent prop rietor for such services, and they 
vary from around EUR 150 to EUR 600 per va lidation of a patent depending on the 
Member State64. 
                                                 
59 Bruno van Pottelsberghe 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. 
https://dipot.ulb.ac.be:8443/dspace/ bitstream/2013/6307 /1/bvp-0063.pdf  
60 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. 
61 Harhoff, Hoisl, Reichl, van Pottelsberghe, 2009, "Pat ent validation at the country level: the role of fees 
and translation costs" arrive at a actual mean number of 21,24 pages per patent. The "Study on the Cost 
of Patenting" carried out by Roland Berger Market Research finds an average of 23 pages, of which 4 
pages of claims. 
62 In some Member States, national law appears to still require that such formalities be carried out by a 
local patent agent.  
63 An exhaustive list of these requirements can be found in "National law relating to the EPC", 14th 
edition, June 2009, pages 99-135. 
64 Interviews with patent agents and Roland Berger Study.  
EN 15   EN – Official fees charged by nati onal patent offices for the publication of the translations:  The 
figure below shows the publication fee (also know n as "printing fee" in  countries where the 
publication still consists in printing the patent  on paper) for a European patent of typical 
length (20 pages)65.  
Figure 3  – Publication fee in the Member Stat es for a typical European patent (in EUR)  
 
Publication Fees
050100150200250300350400
UKLUITFRDEBENLBGIEEELTLVPLCZCYSIROSKPTDKMTHUELSEATESFI 
Source: National Law relating to the EPC, 14th Edition, 2009.  
In order to reduce the costs induced by the valida tion requirements, the Agreement on the 
application of Article 65 EPC (London Ag reement) was adopted in October 200066. The 
London Agreement is an optional scheme, allowi ng for collective action to reduce patenting 
costs by dispensing with some or all translati on requirements. It entere d into force on 1 May 
2008. Today sixteen Member States are not part ies to the London Agreement and thus require 
a translation of the entire patent into their official language (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, 
Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Gr eece, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Poland, Portugal, 
Romania, Slovakia and Spain)67, mainly for political reas ons. Table 1 summarises the 
translation requirements in the Member States . See Annex IV for more details on the London 
Agreement. 
                                                 
65 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. 
66 OJ EPO 2001, 550.  
67 It is to note that currently Ireland and Malta do not  require a translation of a European patent into Irish 
and Maltese. For validation it suffices that the European patent is available in English. 
EN 16   EN Table 1  – Summary of the translation require ments in the Member States (2011) 
Requirement Member State 
No translation requirement for the description or 
claims Germany, France, Luxembourg, UK 
Translation of claims to of ficial language of the MS 
but no translation requirement for the description Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia 
Translation of claims to the official language and 
the description to English Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, Hungary 
Translation of the claims and the description to the 
official language(s) of the MS Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, 
Estonia, Finland, Greece, Sp ain, Ireland, Italy, Malta, 
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia 
The chart below illustrates the total validation costs (including direct translation 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,  13 and 27 EU Member 
States: 
– if the patent proprietor wishes protection in  only three Member States – Germany, France 
and UK (which are parties to the London Agreem ent) – that overall validation costs equal 
the translation costs of the claims to French and English68, i.e. EUR 680;  
– validation costs are approximately EUR 12 500 when protection is sought in thirteen 
Member States (the ones in which mo st validations take place), and  
– finally, validation costs are over EUR 32 000 if a patent is validate d in the whole EU. 
Figure 4  – Example of total validation costs (in EU R) of a European patent of typical length 
in a selection of EU Member States  
Validation costs of a typical European patent, in EUR
05000100001500020000250003000035000
DE, FR, UK AT, BE, DE, DK, FR,
IE, IT, LU, NL, ES, SK,
SE, UK27 MSCosts
 
Source: European Commission 
                                                 
68 There are no additional valida tion requirements or costs. 
EN 17   EN It is important to note that only around 1 000 patents out of approx. 50 000 annually validated 
patents (2%) are validated in all 27 Member  States. Around 4 000 patents (8%) are validated 
in 13 Member States and 20 000 patents per year  are validated in the largest 5 EU markets 
(40%). Approximately half of these patents are only validated in 3 Member States – an 
estimated 25 000 patents per year (50%). Accord ing to these figures, th e estimated validation 
costs are around EUR 193 million per year.  
Table 2  – The annual validation costs in the EU (in EUR) 
Scope Patents per year Cost per patent 
(in EUR) Total costs  
(in EUR) Cost per capita 
(EUR/million) 
27 Member States 1000 32 112 32 million 64.1 
13 Member States 4000 12 507 50 million 33.3 
5 MS (DE, UK, FR, IT, ES) 20000 4718 94 million 15 
3 MS (DE, UK, FR) 25000 680 17 million 3.2 
Total   193 million  
Source: European Commission 
The charts below show that the per capita cost  of obtaining patent protection in the EU shows 
a much steeper increase than the increase in th e actual size of the ma rket covered by patent 
protection. 
Figure 5  – Illustration of increase in mar ket size and cost par patent per capita  
Population (million)
0100200300400500600
UK DE FR UK, DE, FR, ES, IT UK, DE, FR, ES, IT, AT,
BE, DK, IE, LU, NL, SK,
SE27 MS
Member StatesPopul ati onCost per capita 
010203040506070
UK DE FR UK, DE, FR, ES, IT UK, DE, FR, ES, IT, AT,
BE, DK, IE, LU, NL, SK,
SE27 MS
Member StatesCost per capita (EUR/m illion)
 
Source: European Commission 
A further shortcoming of the current translatio n arrangements for European patents is the 
practical difficulties in accessing the translations  at some national pate nt offices. While some 
offices do make the translati ons available electronically69, others only provid e access to paper 
                                                 
69 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 
EN 18   EN copies that can be consulted in the public r eading rooms of the national patent offices, or 
copied at the expense of interested third part ies. The number of translations consulted in 
Member States where translations are only available in printed form is extremely low – less than 2% according to estimates
70.  
Finally, the publication of the translations takes pl ace very late in the "life cycle" of the patent 
– only months after grant and af ter the publication of the patent specifications by the EPO and 
hence often not before five years after the da te of filing of the patent application. Yet 
innovative businesses must keep abreast of the la test technological developments in their field 
by monitoring new patent applications filed by their competitors – which are published 
already 18 months after the date  of filing (in the language of proceedings before the EPO) – 
not by reading the transla tions supplied several year s later. In practice, third parties make little 
use of the translations filed at  the national patent offices afte r the patent has been granted.  
4.2. Problem 2: Differences in the maintena nce of patents in the Member States71 
Articles 86 and 141 of the EP C lay down that renewal fees for the European patent 
application has to be paid to the EPO as of the third year from the date of filing the application. The fee has to be  paid each subsequent year, until the European patent is 
published in the European Patent  Bulletin. The national law of th e countries where the patent 
is then validated may only impose renewal f ees for the period af ter the publication. 
After grant, renewal fees have to be paid by the patent prop rietor each year in each country 
where the patent is validated. If the patent hol der does not pay the fees, the patent lapses and 
becomes part of the public domain. Renewal fees usually increase as time progresses and thus 
patentees only maintain patents if they genera te (or are expected to generate) higher income 
than the costs of maintaining it . 50% of EPO patents lapse in th e first 10 years after filing and 
about 8% are renewed until statutory term (20 years)
72.  
The level of renewal fees show s great diversity in the Memb er States. For example, the 
cumulated renewal fees until the 10th year of protection are between EUR 476 (Slovenia) and 
HUF 871 000 (approx. EUR 3 161) in Hungary. The cumulated renewal fees until the 20th 
year of the protection is between EUR 2 411 (Malta) and EUR 13 170 (Germany) in Europe73.  
While the divergent fee structures may be e xplained on the basis of policy considerations, 
there are many auxiliary provisions  in the national laws that make the maintenance of patents 
in several Member States unnece ssarily difficult. The due date of the payment is usually 
defined as the "anniversary date of the filing" (e.g. Czech Republic, Hungary) or "the last day 
of the month in which the date of filing occurred" (e.g. Austria, Finland, France), but the time 
period during which the payment needs to be made shows great variety. In some Member 
States, the payment can already be made at mo st 12 months before the due date (e.g. Czech 
Republic, Germany, Luxembourg or Slovenia), in ot hers payments cannot be made more than 
                                                                                                                                                         
which will shape patent information policy in the 21st century, radically reducing the interval between 
publication and distribution of information. 
70 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). 
71 Source of the data used in this section: National law relating to the EPC, EPO, June 2009. 
72 Dominique Guellec, Bruno van Pottelsberghe: The Economics of the European Patent System, Oxford 
University Press, 2007, p.148. 
73 See details on renewal fees in Annex V. 
EN 19   EN 6 months before the due date (e.g. Malta, Port ugal, Sweden). There are countries where the 
earliest possible date of payment is four (Irela nd), three (e.g. Spain, UK), or two months (e.g. 
Lithuania, Hungary) before the due date.  
Figure 6  – Earliest date of paying the rene wal fees before the due date (2009)74 
Earliest date of paying the renewal fees before the due date (in 
months)
AustriaBelgiumBulgaria CyprusCzech RepublicGermanyDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceHungaryIrelandLithuaniaLuxembourgMaltaPolandPortugalSloveniaSlovakiaSpain SwedenUK
-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0
due date
months
 
Source: National law relating to the EPC, 14th edition, 2009. 
In all Member States there is a period of gr ace for the payment of the renewal fees during 
which the patent holders can stil l pay the renewal fees (with a surcharge) and thus not lose 
their rights on the patent. This grace period is  6 months in all Member States, however, the 
surcharge due during this period shows once again great variety. In  a few countries the 
surcharge is a fixed amount (EUR 50 in Ge rmany, EUR 100 in Italy, EUR 14 in Luxembourg) 
while in most states it is a percentage of  the renewal fee (between 10% and 100%).  
Payments can be made in cash, by bank transf er, postal money order or cheque, depending on 
the Member State. In some countries bank transfer  is still not possible. In Italy payments have 
to be made at an Italian post office and the pa yment voucher has to be pr esented to the Italian 
Patent and Trademark Office. In Luxembourg, there is only possibility for cash payment, 
postal money order or post office transfer or payment.  
The above examples illustrate that there is a hi gh number of requirements that inventors and 
businesses need to observe in order to mainta in the patent protection in more than one 
Member State. While only Malta, Poland, Latv ia, Cyprus, Romania and Greece requires the 
appointment of a national pr ofessional representative75 for the payment of renewal fees, the 
complexity of legal and administrative require ments and the need to communicate with the 
                                                 
74 In Greece, Italy, the Netherlands and Ro mania there are no relevant provisions. 
75 In Romania if the patent holder resides outside Ro mania; in Greece if the patent holder does not have a 
residence or principal place of business in Greece. 
EN 20   EN patent offices in the official language of the Member State can make it difficult or impossible 
for foreign patentees to manage their patent  without local representation. If companies 
providing technical assi stance charge EUR 30-40 per patent  per country for carrying out the 
payment of renewal fees76, renewing a European patent in five countries could cost EUR 150-
200 each year in addition to the renewal fees. Where patent holders are required to appoint 
patent attorneys, the fees are likely to be much higher. Using the same assumption on the 
number of patents as in Table 2, the accumulated costs for a European patent that is renewed 
for 10 years is shown in Table 3 belo w (calculated from the third year). 
Table 3  – Accumulated cost of techni cal assistance and renewal fees 
 Costs of technical 
assistance for payment 
(10 years – in EUR) Patents per 
year Total cost of technical 
assistance for 10 years 
(in EUR) Total cost of 
renewal fees for 10 
years (in EUR) 
3 MS 
(DE, UK, FR)  720-960  25000 18 million – 24 million 73 million 
5MS (DE,UK, 
FR, IT, ES)  1200-1600 20000 24 million – 32 million 91 million 
13 MS 3120-4160  4000 12,5 million – 16.6 million  56.8 million 
27 MS 6480-8640 1000 6.5 million – 8.6 million 30.3 million 
Total   61 million – 81.2 million 251.1 million 
Source: European Commission 
4.3. Problem 3: Administrative complexity of  registering transfers, licences and 
other rights77 
Patents can facilitate transacti ons in the markets for technolo gy: they can be bought and sold 
as property titles or, more frequently, be subjec t to licensing agreements. Up till the grant of 
European patents, transfers, li cences and other rights are register ed centrally in the European 
Patent Register by the EPO. Afte r grant, however, a transfer is  registered in the European 
Patent Register only during the opposition period or during opposition proceedings78. 
Following this period, all registrations take pl ace in the national patent registers of those 
countries in which the pate nt has been validated.  
National patent registers must re gister any transfer of rights by transaction (e.g. sale, merger, 
transfer of title) or by operation of law (e.g. succession, insolvency, compulsory execution). 
They also register licence agreements, pledges, etc. When patents are validated in more than 
one country, any changes related to the rights on the patents must be registered in each 
country in which the transaction or othe r change need to have legal effect.  
Registering transfers, licences  or other rights require mandating a professional representative 
in more than half of the Member States79. According to an example given by professional 
representatives, attorney fees  for transferring a patent can be as low as EUR 50, but the 
                                                 
76 Example given by professional representatives. 
77 Source of data used in this section: Natio nal law relating to the EPC, EPO, June 2009 
78 Opposition procedures allow for challenging th e validity of patents by anyone on the grounds 
prescribed by Article 100 of the EPC. 
79 Exceptions are Denmark, France, Greece, Ireland, It aly, Netherlands, Portugal,  Spain, Sweden, UK and 
partially Hungary and Luxembourg. 
EN 21   EN associated communications with the owner can push this up to EUR 200. For rights held in 
other Member States than that of the owner, wh ere an owner would have to cover the cost of 
an attorney able to ac t in the local language and may have associated  translation costs, a 
transfer can cost EUR 500 per Member State. So, registering the transfer of a patent valid in 
five Member States can cost EUR 2000-2500. In addition, there are different procedural fees 
in the different Member States. For example, the registration of a transfer costs EUR 7 per 
patent in Luxembourg and EUR 136 in Greece. Some Member States (e.g. UK) do not apply 
procedural fees in these cases.  
Moreover, there are different requirements in the Member States as regards the types of 
documents to be submitted to the patent regist er. Some require the submission of the original 
document or a certified copy (e.g. Austria, Finl and), some others accept simple copies e.g. 
Czech Republic, Bulgaria, France) or forms to be  filled (e.g. UK). In some countries a special 
written request needs to be submitted (e.g. Slovak ia, Poland, Latvia) and/or a proof of the fee 
payments (e.g. Belgium, Bulgaria). The divers ity of administrative re quirements does not only 
make the management of patents in several Memb er States very difficult for patent proprietors 
but the lack of Europe-wide transp arency also makes it costly for third parties to keep track of 
the status of the patent and the rights attache d. Due to lack of data on the number of patent 
transfers, licensing agreements, etc. the EU aggregated cost cannot be provided. 
4.4. Consequence: EU-wide patent protection is expensive 
As a consequence of the problems explai ned above, access to comprehensive patent 
protection in Europe is so costly and comple x that it is inaccessible to many inventors and 
companies. There is some evidence that the cost s associated with patent  protection are so high 
that SMEs often prefer informal protection of  their innovations (i.e . secrecy). For bigger 
firms, this size effect disappear s. With the existing patent syst em in Europe, a critical size 
appears to be necessary to beco me an active user of patents80. The cost of often several patent 
attorneys to manage patents in  the European system, as well as the fees for patent 
applications, validations and renewals are pa rticularly strong motives for SMEs for not 
patenting innovations. In a recent study81 55.6% of micro enterprise s, 32% of small and 26% 
of medium-sized enterprises mentioned the fact that  they needed to pay patent attorney fees in 
several member States. As regards the applic able fees, resp ectively 39%, 60% and 47.4% of 
enterprises raised similar concerns.  
But even when European patents are solicited an d granted, they are usually validated only in a 
few countries selected by the patent holder. Currently, a European patent is, on average, 
validated in only five EU Member States82. The number of validati ons has even decreased 
over the last 15 years, although the number of EPC Contracting States has increased  from 17 
(in 1995) to 37 today83. There is no straightforward explana tion for this slight decline since a 
number of factors affect the patenting stra tegy for a company and decisions are taken on a 
                                                 
80 A. Garcia – D. Foray: What is small? Small and medium enterprises facing patenting activities, 
November 2010, IPTS Working Paper http://iri.jrc.ec.europa.eu/papers/2010_JRC61689_WP9.pdf 
81 Study on the quality of the patent system in Europe, 2011. 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/patent/index_en.htm#studies  
82 See, for example, "Study on the Cost of Patenti ng" carried out by Roland Berger Market Research, 
August 2004. 
83 See "Economic cost-benefit analysis of the Community patent" – by van Pottelsberghe, Danguy, on the 
basis of data provided by the EPO.  
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/docs /patent/studies/compact-cost%20-benefit-study-
final_en.pdf   
EN 22   EN case-by-case basis. Possible explanations include a general rise in number of applications and 
granted patents (e.g. about 78 000 applications we re received at the EPO in 1995 compared to 
more than 146 000 in 2008) resu lting in larger company patent  portfolios and therefore fewer 
validations in order not to increase the overall costs of their patent portfolio.  
Figure 7  below shows the approximate number of Eur opean patents that were validated in the 
Member States according to the latest availa ble data. Most valida tions were made in 
Germany, France and the UK, followed by Ireland, Austria and Italy. 
Figure 7  – European patents validat ed in the Member States84 
0100002000030000400005000060000
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria 
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Germany
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Greece 
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Latvia 
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Spain 
SwedenUKNumber of validations in the Member States
 
Source: European Commission 
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 strong negative impact85, but other factors such as a country's 
GDP, size and state of development of its mark et, number of years of EPC membership, and 
distance to other countries also impact on the validation decision86. In practice, the European 
patent thus provides patent protectio n in only a few EU Member States.  
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. I.e. the Agreement cuts validation costs 
entirely in four Member Stat es (DE, FR, LU and the UK), re duces costs in seven Member 
States where translations of the claims still have to be supplied (DK, HU, LT, LV, NL, SE, SI) and leaves validation requirements untouched in sixteen Member States.  
As regards to the maintenance of patents and the registration of rights and licences, the 
administrative burden and complexity seem to generate unnecessary costs for inventors and 
                                                
 
84 Malta is not included due to lack of information. 
85 See Annex VI for international comp arison of overall patenting costs. 
86 These latter factors are constant over time and cannot serve as leverage for policy options. 
EN 23   EN businesses. For example, renewing a patent for 10 years in the five most validated Member 
States is estimated to cost up to EUR 7 500. This amount could exceed EUR 43 000 in 20 
years87.  
Finally, the fragmentation of pa tent protection also renders the enforcement of patent rights 
more difficult. When goods enter the EU thr ough a Member State where a patent is not in 
force, the patent holder may not  rely on the EU Customs Code to withhold the goods 
suspected to be in breach of a patent88. The goods have to be released by the customs 
authorities and thus allowed to circulate freel y within the internal market, possibly also 
including the Member States wher e the patent is in force. Th e identification of the goods in 
breach of a patent is thus very difficult. 
4.5. Overall impacts 
The situation described above has major undesira ble effects on the functi oning of the internal 
market. In addition to maintaining the fragment ation of the market, it also has a negative 
impact on innovation, growth and the competitiveness of European business.  
4.5.1.  Fragmentation of the Single Market 
The lack of access to comprehensive patent prot ection in Europe means that patent protection 
stops at the national borders. In order to reduce legal complexity and costs, European patents 
are validated in only a few Member States. Theref ore, business opportunities  are lost as patent 
proprietors tend to focus on some national ma rkets in their patent protection and the 
production, licensing and marketing of their prod ucts. Business opportunities in other markets 
– whether smaller or more distant – are less likely  to be pursued; this fails to fulfil a true 
internal market and this may also unde rmine the cohesion within the Union.  
4.5.2.  Hindrance to innovation 
Among other factors in commercial decisions, th e characteristics of a market in terms of 
patent protection can lead to more or less investments in R&D and technology transfers. 
European inventors cannot enjoy the full benefits of the Single Market when they need to seek 
patent protection country-by-country. This situ ation compares negatively with other major 
economies such as the United States, Japan or Ch ina. Seeking patent pr otection in economies 
with large consumer markets a nd unitary protection systems, su ch as the United States may 
prove to be more attractive for inventors.  This situation has negative impact on the 
competitiveness of the Union as innovation-rela ted activities generate  human capital that 
tends to be more mobile than in other ar eas. The current less advantageous framework 
conditions for innovation makes the Union a less attractive place to crea te and innovate, for 
both European and non-European inventors.  
Finally, the decision of companies (in particular  SMEs) not to patent certain inventions but 
keep them in secret have a negative  impact on the dissemination of knowledge. 
                                                 
87 Estimated on the basis of renewal fees in DE, FR, UK, IE and AT. 
88 Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of 
infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have 
infringed such rights. OJ L 196, 2.8.2003, p. 7–14.  
EN 24   EN 4.5.3.  Hindrance to growth and competitiveness  
Innovative companies are at a disadvantage as  third parties producing and selling patented 
products in Member States wher e patent protection has not been  secured, have a competitive 
advantage over patent proprietors who need to  recoup R&D investments;  the problem affects 
especially innovative SMEs who have refraine d from securing patent protection throughout 
the Union due to the high costs associated with obtaining such protection. 
Obtaining a patent in 13 Member States today co sts 10 times as much as  obtaining a patent in 
the US (EUR 18 536 as opposed to EUR 1850)89. As it was presented in section 3.1, forming 
start-ups on the basis of patents is uncommon in Europe. This reduced the potential for job 
creation and thus growth. 
Patents may create more value when they can be  licensed out or sold for a bigger market and 
they can disseminate knowledge by transferring  technology more effectively. The current 
fragmentation makes it more difficu lt to trade and can even deter th e incentives to trade at all, 
due to a complexity of the assessm ent of individual national rights. 
Finally, the value of patents is weakened as patent proprietors  cannot rely on the EU Customs 
Border Regulation (Regulation No. 1383/2003) to prevent infringing goods  and products from 
third countries from entering the internal market through Member States in which there is no 
patent protection. 
To conclude, the high costs of obtaining EU-wide patent protection have the following 
effects: the costs deter SMEs fr om patenting inventions, patent s are validated only in a few 
EU countries and the knowledge dissemination remains limited. Consequently, the Single Market continues to be fragment ed in terms of patent protec tion and access to certain products 
and services; finally both innovation and grow th of European companies are hindered.  
5. S
UBSIDIARITY  
The creation of European intellectual propert y rights to provide unifo rm protection throughout 
the EU and associated language arrangement s is provided for by Article 118 TFEU.  
The problems outlined above can only be addresse d at EU level by a solution that drastically 
reduces translation and administrative require ments compared to the current regime. EU 
action is necessary, as without an EU legal in strument Member States would not sufficiently 
be able to establish legal effects attached to patents that are uniform in several Member States.  
Proportionality is taken into account in the an alysis of the options in chapters 7 and 8. 
6. OBJECTIVES  
Following from the problem definition, the general objectives of this pro posal are to enhance 
the functioning of the Single Market and foster growth and innovation. Th ese objectives could 
be achieved by increasing SMEs' access to patent  protection, increasing the scope of patent 
validations and knowledge dissemi nation (specific objectives). 
                                                 
89 Calculation includes the procedural fees at the EPO and the validation costs. 
EN 25   EN The above objectives can only be reached by loweri ng the overall costs of patent protection in 
Europe, in particular by reducing the tran slation and publication costs, simplifying the 
maintenance of patents (renewal) and simplif ying the registration of  transfers, licensing 
agreements and other rights. These are th e operational objectives of this exercise. 
Figure 8  - Objectives 
 
7. POLICY OPTIONS AND ANALYSIS  
This chapter examines different policy options that could be chosen in order to solve the 
problems presented in chapter 4 without prejud ice to their legal feas ibility. However, as 
explained in the Introduction and chapter 2, 25 Member States requested the Commission to 
propose enhanced cooperation in the area of unita ry patent protection and indicated the scope 
and objectives of such cooperation. These precond itions need to be taken into account when 
considering the options.  
The policy options are discussed and measured against the following pre-defined criteria:  
Effectiveness:  The extent to which the measure fulfils the objectives.  
Cost reduction:  The estimated cost reduction for the user s of the patent system, in particular, 
the level of potential cost savings per patent  application and, more generally, for the whole 
patent system. 
Simplification : The extent of foreseeable simplifica tion of the legal and administrative 
complexity the current patent system. 
Political feasibility : The possibility to reach an agreem ent on each of the options must be 
assessed. Numerous attempts to address the problems identified above have already taken 
place in the past. The assessment of the past fa ilures and in particular the reasons for these 
failures therefore require evaluating the political feas ibility of each option. 
EN 26   EN The IA report does not present and analyse optio ns with respect to the level of annual renewal 
fees for the patents as those fees should not be determined by European legislation. The 
annual renewal fees should cover the costs generate d at the EPO in the course of the grant and 
management of the relevant patents and thus the EPO has to be involved in the decision-
making process so that the solution fits in its  existing procedures and fee scheme. Moreover, 
the level of the renewal fee depends on a number  of factors (costs, number of participating 
countries, etc.) and should be progressive th roughout the life of the patent. Should the fee 
level be determined by law, the change of th ese conditions would entail the need to amend 
European legislation that may prove to be time-consuming and burdensome. As a 
consequence, while the options analyse those cost components where the savings can be 
foreseen, meaningful aggregate figures includ ing all costs elements cannot be presented. 
7.1. Option 1 (Base-line scenario) – the Commission takes no action 
Description:  Under this scenario, the cu rrent patent system in Eu rope would remain intact. 
The only improvement that could be envisaged w ould be that more EU Member States accede 
to the London Agreement. Accession is, however , not only optional but also a lengthy and 
complex process as parliamentary approval procedures must take place in each country. Accession by all remaining 16 Member States is unlikely to happen, even in the long run as 
there are several Member States that have not ye t expressed any intention to join. It is to note 
that the majority of the Member States whic h are not parties to the London Agreement have 
an official language that is not  in common with any official la nguage of the EPO. Therefore, 
even after accession, they may requi re a translation of the claims into their national language.  
Analysis: 
Under this option, the shortcomings of th e current European pa tent system would 
not be addressed and the costs and the comp lexity of the current system would stay 
unchanged. It would also have a negative impact on the functioning of the internal market due 
to continuous fragmentation resulting from pate nt proprietors' validati on practices. Therefore, 
this solution is not effective. 
In terms of cost reduction and simplification,  even if all Member States acceded to the 
London Agreement, the eventual language arrang ement for the European patent would remain 
complex and costly. In addition, the London Agreement fails to address the other shortcomings of the current European patent sy stem, in particular th e validation requirements 
in the Member States would remain. Als o, it would have no impact on the cost and 
complexity of the renewal of patents (problem 2) and the registration of rights (problem 3). 
Therefore, this option would pr ovide no additional benefit to us ers of the patent system and 
the costs would remain as they were descri bed in the problem de finition (chapter 4). 
Finally, this option is also not in line with the political enga gement of the Commission and the 
Council to address the problems in the current patent system: The Conclusions and General 
Approach adopted by the Council on 4 D ecember 2009, the Commission's Europe 2020 
Strategy and the Single Market Act. 
Table 4
 – Expected impact of option 1 
Policy Option  Effectiveness  Cost reduction  Simplification  Political feasibility  
Option 1 0 0 0 Low 
"0": no change "+": positive impact "-": negative impact  
EN 27   EN 7.2. Option 2 – the Commission continues to  work with the other institutions 
towards an EU patent covering 27 Member States 
Description:  Under this option, the Commission – togeth er with the Council and the European 
Parliament – would continue to work towards an  EU patent which covers all Member States. 
In practice, this solu tion requires the conti nuation of the discussions in the Council on the 
basis of the Commission's proposal for a Regulation on the Community patent of 200090 and 
the proposal for a Council regulation on the translation arrangem ents applicable to EU patent 
of 201091.  
Under this option, the EU patent would be granted by the EPO on the basis of the EPC. The 
EU patent would be of autonomous nature a nd provide uniform protection throughout the EU. 
The procedure up to the grant of the patent w ould be the same as the procedure for granting 
European patents under the EPC. An EU patent  would be granted in  English, French or 
German by the EPO. At the time when the EU patent is granted, the patent proprietor would 
supply to the EPO a translation of the claims in to the two other official  languages of the EPO. 
After the grant of the EU patent, its legal e ffects would extend to all Member States. There 
would be no additional validation requirements. Moreover, the renewal f ees would be paid at 
the EPO and the patent would be registered in a single European register of EU patents.  
Analysis: Under this option, the objective of a si mpler and more cost -effective European 
patent system would be fully achieved. An EU patent coveri ng all Member States would be 
the most effective solution.  
Doing away with all translati ons after grant and associated  validation requirements would 
result in very significant cost reductions and si mplification for all users of the patent system. 
The translation costs under th is option would amount to a pproximately EUR 680 per patent92. 
This corresponds to the current average cost of the translati on of the claims into the two 
official languages of the EPO other than the la nguage of proceedings and would equal the cost 
of validation in Germany, France and the UK under the London Agreement.  
Under this option, the transla tion costs amounting to EUR 680 would therefore replace all 
other translation and validation co sts (excluding attorney fees). Namely, instead of more than 
EUR 32 000 in validation costs for the coverage  of the whole EU or EUR 4700 for the five 
largest Member States, the costs for the EU pa tent would be reduced to EUR 680, i.e. 2% of 
the current validation cost for the EU-27. This op tion would also ensure th at the EU 27 patent 
is competitive even to the most limited European  patents. The per capita cost would be very 
low: EUR 1.36/million habitants. Since studies have shown that the price elasticity is -0.4; i.e. 
a cost reduction of 10% would lead to an incr ease of about 4% in patent filings, the cost 
reduction under this option can be expected to lead to greater demand for patenting93. 
                                                 
90 COM(2000)412 final 
91 COM(2010)350 final 
92 4 pages of claims x 85 EUR/page x 2 languages = EUR 680, calculated on the basis of the 
Commission's 2010 proposal on the translation arrangements for the EU patent, COM(2010)350 final. 
93 Patent fees for a sustainable EU (Community) patent system by Bruno Van Pottelsberghe and Jérôme 
Danguy, see http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/patent/index_en.htm  
EN 28   EN As explained in section 4.1, the an nual validation costs in the EU are estimated to reach EUR 
193 million per year94. If the validation cost for the EU patent is presumed at the minimum 
EUR 680, one may assume that: (i) those patents that are currently validated in more than 3 
Member States with much higher costs would al l become EU patents wh ich cover the territory 
of the EU; (ii) from the 25 000 patents per year that currently are validated in only 3 Member 
States (for identical co sts, i.e. EUR 680), the majority woul d also become EU patents (except 
for specific marketing decisions or different coverage desired,  for example, covering only 
Germany and Switzerland). Consequently, the tota l costs for the users would be equal whether 
all European patents would become EU patent s or part of them would remain European 
patents limited to three Member States.  
Table 5  – Estimated costs of the EU 27 patent 
Scope Patents per year Cost per pate nt (in EUR) Total costs (in EUR) 
EU 27 patent 100% 50000 680 34 million 
or 
EU 27 patent 75% 37 500 680 25.5 million 
European patent 25% 12 500 680 8.5 million 
Total   34 million 
Source: European Commission 
The cost savings for the users of the patent sy stem (patentees) would thus be EUR 159 million  
per annum . 
In order to ensure sufficient fl exibility, annual renewal fees for an EU 27 patent would not be 
determined by EU legislation but would be  subject to further negotiations in the 
implementation phase. Thus the potential costs sa vings in the renewal fees compared to the 
present system cannot be calculated in this re spect. The same applies to the cost savings 
deriving from the single centralised procedure w ith respect to professional representation for 
the registration of transfers or licensing agreemen ts. As there is no information available on 
the number or scope of the regist ration of rights in th e national patent regi sters, there is no 
possibility to calculate th e overall costs and savings. 
As section 4.2 explains, the technical assist ance provided by companies for the payment of 
fees cost EUR 30-40 per patent pe r country. If renewal f ees were to be paid to the EPO, these 
the cost of technical assistan ce would be EUR 240-320, if any, fo r the patent that is renewed 
for 10 years (calculated from the third year ). This means a potential saving of EUR 6450-
8600 per patent over a 10-year period. Based on th e assumptions used in Table 3, the overall 
amount of these fees would be EUR 12 million-16 million in 10 years. This could mean an overall saving of EUR 49-65.2 million in a 10-y ear period compared to the present system. 
As the payment and management of the renewal of  the patents, as well as the registration of 
the patents and the related right s and licences would be manage d centrally, this option would 
achieve the greatest simplification. While today the administration of patents needs to be 
                                                
 
94 In order to calculate the potential cost savings for the users of the patent system, it was necessary to 
make certain assumptions and due to the complexity of the current system, some approximations of the 
data used. 
EN 29   EN carried out country-by-country, unde r this option, a single central  procedure at the EPO would 
replace all.  
As regards the political feasibility of this op tion, the translation arrangements (which require 
unanimity in the Council - Artic le 118(2) TFEU) pose the biggest obstacle. The Council had 
tried and failed on several occasions to reach a unanimous agreement. As explained in chapter 2, the Competitiveness Council confirmed on 10 November 2010 that no unanimous 
agreement could be reached on the transla tion arrangements and on 10 December 2010 that 
insurmountable difficulties existed, making a decision requiring unanimity impossible now 
and in the foreseeable future. Therefore, desp ite all the benefits of  this option, it is not 
achievable politically and thus the problems of the EU patent system could not be addressed 
through this option. 
Table 6
 – Expected impact of option 2 
Policy Option  Effectiveness  Cost reduction  Simplification  Political feasibility  
Option 2 +++ +++ +++ Not possible 
"0": no change "+": positive impact "-": negative impact  
7.3. Option 3 - the Commission presents pr oposals for regulation implementing 
enhanced cooperation 
Description:  Under this option, the Commission would pr esent the proposals necessary for the 
implementation of enhanced cooperation in the ar ea of unitary patent pr otection. The area of 
unitary patent protection would include the territories of the Member States that wish too 
cooperate in this framework. So far the Commi ssion has received requests from 25 Member 
States wishing to participate in enhanced c ooperation and adopted a proposal for a Council 
decision authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of unitary patent protection in 
December 2010, in response to these re quests (see details in chapter 2).  
In this framework, the unitary pa tent protection would be optional to the us ers of the patent 
system and would co-exist with current system . The unitary patent pr otection would provide 
European patents granted by the EPO with unitary  effect for the territories of the Member 
States participating in th e enhanced cooperation.  
Consequently, until grant, applicants would have  the choice between (i) a European patent 
valid in the territories of the participating Me mber States for which th is patent would have 
unitary character, (ii) a European patent valid in the territories of the participating Member 
States for which this patent w ould have unitary character but al so designating selected other 
Contracting States of the EPC (e specially the Member States not participating in the enhanced 
cooperation), or (iii) a European patent designating only select ed Contracting States to the 
EPC (no matter whether they ta ke part in the enhanced c ooperation or not). The unitary 
protection for European patents granted by the EP O would come into effect in the territories 
of the participating Member St ates without any valid ation with the national patent offices. 
Moreover, the renewal fees would be paid at the EPO and the pate nt would be registered in a 
single European register with re gard to the territories of th e participating Member States. 
EN 30   EN The options as regards the applicable tran slation arrangements ar e described under sub-
options 3.1 and 3.295. Both sub-options have the following common elements: 
A) Any translation to be filed at the time of grant shall be fi led centrally at the EPO, which 
shall be in charge of the el ectronic publication of the patent . Article 14 of the EPC applies 
with respect to the languages of filing. 
B) The development of automatic machine tran slation (AMT) programs for patent documents 
is essential in order to improve the dissemina tion of technological information for researchers 
throughout the EU. A project in this  field is underway at the EPO.  The availability of a fully-
fledged AMT system promises significant improvements for users monitoring the content of new patent applications in foreign languages.  
C) In the case of a dispute relatin g to a European patent with uni tary effect, the patentee will 
provide, at his/her expense and at  the request of an alleged infr inger, a full translation of the 
patent into an official language of the par ticipating Member State in which the alleged 
infringement took place or in which th e alleged infringer is domiciled.  
D) An application for a European patent may be filed in any language
96. Where the language 
of filing is not an official EPO language, a tran slation of the applica tion must be provided, 
within a prescribed time period, so that the applica tion can be processed by the EPO. If a 
natural or legal person having his/her reside nce or principal place of business within a 
participating Member State that does not have as an official language among the language of 
proceedings before the EPO files an application for a patent in the official language of their 
Member State, the cost of translation shall be borne by the system, should he/she chose to 
obtain unitary effect to their European patent. 
Analysis:  This option would allow for the creation of unitary patent protection limited to the 
territories of the Member St ates that participate in en hanced cooperation. Enhanced 
cooperation remains open to all Member States which may join any time, provided that they 
meet the conditions of the established cooperati on. The Member States th at expressed a wish 
to participate in enhanced c ooperation make up 79% of the tota l EU population. In terms of 
patenting activity in the EU, a pplicants from the participati ng Member States have filed 
approximately 92% of applications from the EU with the EPO in 2009. All Member States 
with the highest per capita number of appli cations would take pa rt in the enhanced 
cooperation97. Accordingly, the proposed enhanced cooperation would cover a market with a 
substantial size in which pate nt holders would get protecti on without any validation with 
national patent offices and without the transactio nal costs. While this solution would not be as 
effective as option 2, it can be  assumed that such a substantial market under a unitary patent 
protection system would be more attractive to the users than the current regime, including the 
area covered by the London Agreement.  
Unitary patent protection would cover a market that is much larger than any market of a 
single Member State, resulting in reduced costs of protection relative to the size of the 
economy (see Tables 2 and 8). Enhanced cooper ation of 25 Member States, in particular, 
would cover 79% of the EU's population (394.7 million people) that  is close to the double of 
                                                 
95 These translation arrangements do not affect the language regime applicable in the patent litigation 
system. The latter will be determined by the legal instrument regulating the patent litigation system. 
96 This is prescribed by Article 5 of the Pate nt law Treaty 2000. See also Article 14(2) EPC. 
97 See the detailed figures in Annex VII. 
EN 31   EN the population of the three most validated Member States (UK, DE, FR – 208.5 million 
people). But even when comparing the figures to the population in the five largest Member 
States (DE, FR, UK, IT, ES – 314.8 million people), the population of  25 Member States 
participating in enhanced cooperation is 80 million higher. 
The effect of relative patenting costs on the dema nd for patent protection was investigated in a 
recent study performed for the Commission98. When comparing patent costs, taking into 
account the market size and the number of claims in an average patent for a given territory, 
the study showed that very high costs in Euro pe induce a much smaller demand for patent 
applications filed at the EPO. The study also shows that the London Agreement has a 
substantial impact on reducing costs, but a Eu ropean patent remains several times more 
expensive than a US patent. 
By providing for unitary patent protection cove ring a sizeable area of the Union, the cost per 
claim per capita for patent protection would decr ease. Studies have shown the price elasticity 
to be -0.4; a cost reduction of 10% would lead to an increase in  patent filing of about 4%. By 
reducing the cost of patent protection per capita,  an enlarged territory for patent protection 
should therefore lead to greater demand for patenting99. 
Option 3 would create an area where the costs a nd the complexity of patent protection would 
be significantly reduced. The level of such co st reduction and simplification would largely 
depend on the number of Member States that participate in enhanced cooperation. It is 
important to highlight, that all patent holders would equally enj oy the benefits of this option, 
no matter whether they are reside nts in countries inside or ou tside the enhanced cooperation. 
The costs of translation in the area of enhanced  cooperation would be c onstant and they would 
not change with respect to the number of Member States that pa rticipate. The larger area is 
covered by enhanced cooperation, the more signifi cant the cost savings ar e. Two scenarios are 
analysed under sub-options 3.1 and 3.2 to demonstrate the potential cost savings. 
The payment and management of the renewal of th e patents, as well as the registration of the 
patents and the related rights and licences would be managed centrally by the EPO with 
respect to the territory of the participating Member States. In addition to the single central procedure at the EPO, all registrations and th e payment of renewal fees would need to be 
carried out country-by-country with respect to th ose Member States that do not participate in 
the enhanced cooperation.  
Following the same logic as in option 2 and assuming that all European patents with unitary 
effect will be renewed for 10 years in the area of enhanced cooperation, the cost savings from the fees of technical assist ance for payments could reach  EUR 3600-4800 per patent, if 16 
Member States took part in the enhanced cooperation and EUR 5040-6720 per patent, if 22 
Member States participated. In the case of pa rticipation by 25 Member States, a saving of 
EUR 5760-7680 can be foreseen. In the non-participat ing countries the fees would need to be 
paid respectively and thus main taining patent protection in a ll Member States would have 
additional costs. 
                                                
 
98 Economic Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Community  Patent by Bruno van Pottelsberghe and Jérôme 
Danguy, see http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/patent/index_en.htm  
99 Patent fees for a sustainable EU (Community) patent system by Bruno Van Pottelsberghe and Jérôme 
Danguy, see http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/patent/index_en.htm  
EN 32   EN As regards the costs deriving from attorney fees  paid by patent holders when they register 
transfers or licensing agreements, there would be  clear costs savings deriving from the single 
centralised procedure with respec t to the territories of the Member States participating in 
enhanced cooperation. But just as in option 2, as there is no informati on available either on 
the number or scope of the regist ration of rights in th e national patent regi sters, there is no 
possibility to calculate th e overall costs and savings. 
Although this option would not bring the full be nefits of option 2, it  would still have a 
positive impact on users of the patent system in Europe.  
7.3.1.  Sub-option 3.1 - the Commission proposes translation arrangements applicable in 
the area of unitary patent protection that correspond to its proposal of 30 June 
2010 
Description:  Under this sub-option, the Commission would propose translation arrangements 
applicable in the area of unitary patent protec tion that are identical to its proposal for the 
translation regime for the EU patent100. The patentee of the Europ ean patent granted by the 
EPO will supply to the EPO a transl ation of the claims into the two other official languages of 
the EPO. No additional translations would be required for the unitary patent protection that 
would take effect automatically in the territories of the Member States participating in enhanced cooperation. 
The only exception to these limited translation requirements would be the case of a dispute 
concerning the patent (see in section 7.3). It is  estimated that less than 1% of all patents 
become subject to litig ation during their term
101. 
Analysis:  The IA carried out by the Commission on the translation arrangements for the EU 
patent is to a large extent applicable under sub-option 3.1. The main difference is that a 
unitary patent under enhanced cooperation would not cover a ll 27 Member States. This sub-
option implies very limited translation costs and no additional validation costs. The average 
cost of patents for the area of enhanced cooperation would be EUR 680.  
In this option, the potential savings woul d depend on the number of Member States 
participating in enhanced cooperation. The table below shows comparison under this sub-
option, for 16, 22 and 25 Member States. 
                                                 
100 COM(2010)350 final 
101 Prof. D. Harhoff, Ph.D.: Economic Cost-Benefit Anal ysis of a Unified and Inte grated European Patent 
Litigation System, final report 2009, p. 14. 
http://ec.europa.eu/in ternal_market/indprop/ docs/patent/studies/litigation_system_en.pdf   
EN 33   EN Table 7  – Comparison of patenting costs under sub-option 3.1 
 European 
patent 27 MS European 
patent 5 MS 
(DE, FR, UK, 
IT, ES) Enhanced 
cooperation 
16 MS + 11 
other MS Enhanced 
cooperation 22 
MS + 5 other 
MS Enhanced 
cooperation 25 
MS + 2 other 
MS 
Translation 23 375 3 910 12 665 8 755 3 910 
Publication 2987 308 1485 588 308 
Representation 5750 500 2750 1250 500 
Total 32 112 4 718 16 900 10 593 4 718 
Source: European Commission 
Therefore, under this sub-option, obtaining patent protection for th e entire territory of the EU, 
if only the 16 Member States joined the enha nced cooperation, would co st 53% of the current 
cost. Presuming that 22 Member States take  part in the enhanced cooperation, patent 
protection would cost only 33% of what it cost s today and only 15% of today's cost if 25 
Member States participate. Taking into acco unt the current validation pattern for the 27 
Member States (see Table 3), the annual sa vings at EU level coul d reach EUR 38.5 million  in 
the case of 16 Member States, EUR 45 million  in the case of 22 Member States and EUR 58.5 
million  in the case of 25 participating countries102.  
Table 8  – Per capita cost of patent protecti on under sub-option 3.1 (EUR/million habitants) 
 16 participating MS 22 participating MS 25 participating MS 
Territories of participating MS 2.1 1.79 1.72 
Territories of 27 MS 33.7  21.1 9.4 
This sub-option would be cost-effective and resu lt in relevant simplification for the users of 
the patent system. However, while the Com mission's proposal was welcomed by a large 
majority of the Member States, it did not fi nd unanimous support. Several Member States 
have indicated the need for a dditional elements. The Member St ates requesting the launch of 
enhanced cooperation have requ ested to include in the imple menting regulations of the 
enhanced cooperation some of the elements propos ed by the Belgian Presidency in relation to 
the translation arrangements, moreover the pr oposal of the Commission on the draft Council 
decision authorising the enhanced cooperation contains already a number of substantive 
elements in this regard (see sub-option 3.2). Th e conditions set by the requests of the Member 
States that they addressed to the Commissi on to launch enhanced cooperation exclude the 
possibility of choosing this sub-option. 
Table 9  – Expected impact of option 3.1 
Policy Option  Effectiveness  Cost reduction  Simplification  Political feasibility  
Option 3.1 ++ ++ ++ Not possible 
"0": no change "+": positive impact "-": negative impact  
                                                 
102 A change in the validation pattern can result in a change in the aggregate savings. 
EN 34   EN 7.3.2.  Sub-option 3.2 – the Commission proposes translation arrangements applicable in 
the area of unitary patent protection bas ed on its proposal of 30 June 2010 and 
incorporating elements of a compro mise proposal discussed by the Council 
Description:  Under this sub-option, the translation arrangements under s ub-option 3.1 would 
be complemented by certain elements of a compromise proposed by the Belgian Presidency and discussed by the Council in October-Nove mber 2010. These arrangements gained support 
from 25 Member States in the Council and were  reflected in their re quest to the Commission 
to provide for a proposal to launch enhanced cooperation. The main set of linguistic 
requirements would be the language regime appli cable under the EPC to all European patents. 
In addition, supplementary transl ation requirements w ithout legal value w ould be applicable 
to the unitary patent protecti on for a transitional period:  
(i) a full translation of a European patent that was granted in French or German and for which 
unitary protection is sought to English (language customary in  the field of international 
research); and  
(ii) a full translation of a European patent th at was granted in English and for which unitary 
protection is sought to an official language of the Member States part icipating in enhanced 
cooperation, at the choice of the patent holder.  
However, the transitional period would be set to a limited period of time which would be 
based on the time which is likely to be necessary to develop high-quality machine translations. It is foreseen that the machine translation project of th e EPO would be further 
developed to include all languages of the Contr acting States to the EPC. The EPO launched a 
specialised machine translation programme for patent documents in 2004, currently ensuring 
the availability of customised translations of  patent specifications in a limited number of 
languages. In October 2010, the EPO extended its machine translation programme with a 
view to making available machine translations for the languages of all the Contracting States 
to the EPC, which include all official EU la nguages, from and to English, by 2014. The EPO's 
Administrative Council agreed to dedicate EUR 10 million to the programme over this period 
of 4 years. Once high-quality machine transl ations would be available, and subject to 
evaluation, additional manual translations woul d not be necessary anymore. The maximum 
period for these arrangements is  12 years but the stat us of the machine translation project will 
be assessed periodically and the Commission will propose to end the transitional arrangements before, if th e conditions are fulfilled. 
Analysis:
 Under this sub-option, additional transl ation requirements during a transitional 
period would result in additional costs to the users of the patent system. Whereas under sub-
option 3.1 the translation cost s would be limited to EUR 680 per patent, additional manual 
translations during a transitional period woul d add an estimated cost between EUR 300 and 
EUR 1700, depending on the language in whic h the patent was granted and the other 
languages chosen for the tr anslation. For example, if a patent  is granted in French or German, 
the translation requirement woul d include: (i) translation of pa tent claims into two other 
official languages of the EPO, and (ii) duri ng a transitional period, a dditional translation of 
the patent description into English. The estima ted costs under these tr anslation requirements 
would therefore amount to EUR 2040 (EUR 680 of  claims in two languages + EUR 1360 for 
description in English).  
But if a patent is granted in English, the following scenarios during a transitional period are 
possible depending on the choice of  the patent holder: (i) If the patent were already be 
EN 35   EN available in English with the claims in French  and German, the patent holder could choose to 
translate only the patent description in French or German. The additiona l costs would thus be 
EUR 1360 for translating the description only. (i i) If the patent holder chooses to fully 
translate the patent in any offi cial language of the Member Stat es participating in enhanced 
cooperation which is not French or  German, in addition to the co st of transla ting the claims 
into French and German, the additional costs would be the maximum of a full translation 
which is estimated at EUR 1700. However, in pract ice, this cost would often be much lower 
as 45% of all patent appl ications at the EPO are first filed in a national patent office. In these 
cases the initial patent applic ations are already available in  national languages. Therefore, 
once a patent is granted by the EPO, this initial application may be transformed into a full translation of a patent upon its grant. The cost s, therefore, would be much lower, around EUR 
300 per patent (i.e. the cost of necessary adaptation, if any). 
Therefore, the total costs of translation during a transitional period may vary from 
approximately EUR 980 to EUR 2380 per patent  in the area of enhanced cooperation . After 
the expiry of this transitional period, when  high-quality machine translations become 
available, the total costs of  translation would be again reduced to EUR 680 as under sub-
option 3.1. During the transitional period, the co sts under sub-option 3.2 would therefore be 
higher than under sub-option 3.1.  
Table 9  – Comparison of patenting costs under sub-option 3.2103 
 European 
patent 27 MS European 
patent 5 MS 
(DE, FR, UK, IT, ES) Enhanced 
cooperation 16 
MS + 11 other MS Enhanced 
cooperation 
22 MS + 5 other MS Enhanced 
cooperation 
25 MS + 2 other MS 
Translation 23 375 3 910 14 365 10 455 5 610 
Publication 2 987 308 1485 588 308 
Representation 5 750 500 2750 1 250 500 
Total 32 112 4 718 18 600 12 293 6 418 
Source: European Commission 
Under this sub-option, ob taining patent protection for the entire territory  of the EU, if only 16 
Member States joined the enha nced cooperation, would cost 58%  of the price patentees have 
to pay today. Presuming that 22 Member Stat es take part in the enhanced cooperation, 
obtaining patent protection woul d cost 38% of what it costs today and only 20% of today's 
cost if 25 Member States partic ipate. Taking into acc ount the current validation pattern for the 
27 Member States (see Table 3), the annual savi ngs at EU level could reach EUR 30 million  
in the case of 16 Member States and EUR 36 million  in the case of 22 Member States taking 
part in enhanced cooperation. In the case of 25 participating countries, this amount would 
reach EUR 50 million104.  
The table below shows the per capita cost of  obtaining unitary pate nt protection in the 
territory of the participating Member States and the cost of obtaining pa tent protection in the 
entire EU under sub-option 3.2. 
                                                 
103 Calculation with EUR 2380 translation cost in the participating Member States (during the transitional 
period) 
104 A change in the validation pattern can result in a change in the aggregate savings. 
EN 36   EN Table 10  – Per capita cost of patent protection under sub-option 3.2 (E UR/million habitants)  
 16 participating MS 22 participating MS 25 participating MS 
Territories of participating MS 7.3 6.3 6 
Territories of 27 MS 37.1 24.5 12.8 
This sub-option would thus be less cost-effect ive than sub-option 3.1 during the transitional 
period but in the long run it could bring abou t the same savings. The same applies for 
simplification. However, as more Member States are likely to join th e enhanced cooperation 
than under sub-option 3.1, the actual savings can be higher in the end. 
As regards the political feasibility, the princi ples of the transitional period were proposed by 
the Belgian Presidency and welcomed by a larg e majority of Member States. Consequently 
this sub-option can be expected to gain more political support.  
Table 11  – Expected impact of sub-option 3.2 
Policy Option  Effectiveness  Cost reduction  Simplification  Political feasibility  
Option 3.2 ++ + (transitional 
period) 
++ (long term) + (transitional 
period) 
++ (long term) High 
"0": no change "+": positive impact "-": negative impact  
8. COMPARING THE OPTIONS AND THEIR IMPACTS  
8.1. Impacts on patent holders 
The table below provides a summary of expected impacts of the options on the main users of 
the patent system. 
Table 12  – Comparing the impacts of the options 
Policy Option  Effectiveness  Cost reduction  Simplification  
Option 1 0 0 0 
Option 2 +++ +++ +++ 
Option 3.1 ++ ++ ++ 
Option 3.2 ++ + (transitional period) 
++ (long term) + (transitional period) 
++ (long term) 
"0": no change "+": positive impact "-": negative impact  
In terms of effectiveness, options 2, 3.1 and 3.2  would be suitable to improve the conditions 
of patent protection in Europe compared to th e current situation. All three options would bring 
about significant positive changes with respec t to the reduction of tr anslation costs, the 
simplification of patent ma intenance and the registrati on of transfers and licensing 
agreements. The most effective solution would be  the creation of an EU  27 patent that would 
EN 37   EN diminish the need for any additional procedure in the EU. Sub-options 3.1 and 3.2 are equally 
effective means to achieve the obj ectives of the initiative. Option 1 is not effective; it hampers 
the competitiveness of the EU. 
As regards cost reduction, once again option 2 would bring about the mo st important savings 
as EU patent protection would potentially be available for on ly EUR 680 (excluding attorney 
fees). However, sections 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 show that  enhanced cooperation could also result in 
significant savings. The amount of these savi ngs would depend on the number of Member 
States taking part in the e nhanced cooperation. The following ch art compares th e per capita 
cost of the patent protection under several scenar ios. The first four columns indicate the cost 
of obtaining patent protection in 3, 5, 13 and 27 Member States  under the baseline scenario 
(see Table 2 for exact figures). The fifth column  shows that the lowest  per capita cost of 
patent protection would be ensu red by option 1, i.e. the EU patent. The last four columns 
show the cost of patent protection under e nhanced cooperation between 25 Member States. 
The sixth and seventh columns represent the per capita cost of patent protection in 25 
countries while the last columns indicate the per capital cost of patent protection in 25+2 
Member States (see Tables 8 and 10 for exact figures). As explained in section 7.3.1, due to 
the significant increase in th e size of the market, and the major reduction in the costs of 
patenting compared to the baseline scenario (o ption 1), it can be expect ed that patentees will 
seek Europe-wide patent protec tion also under option 3. Figure 9 also shows that, even during 
the transitional period (sub-optio n 3.2) the cost of Europe-wide patent protection will be much 
closer to the EU-patent scenario  than to the baseline scenari o. Finally, it is important to 
underline that even if unitary patent protection during the tran sitional period will be somewhat 
more costly than patent protec tion today in 3 Member States (UK, DE and FR), there are a 
number of advantages that can be expected  to lead to a major shift towards the new 
instrument. In particular, the fact  that size of the market cove red by the protection will be 
doubled (see details in section 7.3), combined with a reduction in administrative burden and 
an increase in the transparency  and accessibility of patent information can make the new 
instrument very attractive to business. 
Figure 9  – Comparing the per capita cost of the options 
Comparison of per capita cost per patent
010203040506070
UK DE FR UK, DE, FR, ES,
ITUK, DE, FR, ES,
IT, A T, B E, DK,
IE, LU, NL, SK,
SE27 M S
(baseline)27 M S (EU
patent)25 participating
MS (sub-option
3.1 )25 participating
M S (sub-option
3.2)25+ 2 M S (sub-
option 3. 1 )25+ 2 M S (sub-
option 3.2)EUR/million habitants
 
EN 38   EN Source: European Commission 
As regards simplification, an EU 27 patent coul d ensure that a single centralised procedure 
applies to the registration of patents, the pa yment of renewal fees and the registration of 
transfers and other rights. Enhanced coopera tion is the second best option. The level of 
simplification compared to the baseline scenario  depends on the number of the Member States 
joining the enhanced cooperation.  
While option 2 would create a leve l-playing field across the EU also in a legal sense, in the 
case of enhanced cooperation too, the users of th e patent system would equally benefit from 
unitary patent protection, no matte r whether they reside in a count ry that does not take part in 
the enhanced cooperation. Inventors could seek  unitary patent protection under the same 
conditions regardless of their count ry of residence. Therefore, al l inventors will benefit from 
the cost reduction and the si mplification brought about by the enhanced cooperation. This 
measure can be expected to have a major positi ve impact on the patenting activity of SMEs 
and an overall increase in the num ber of patents throughout Europe. 
It is to note that inventors fr om third countries woul d benefit for unitary patent protection the 
same way as European patentees. Approximately half of the European patent applications 
come from outside the EU (see Annex II). Thes e applicants would also benefit from the 
simplification and cost reduc tion under options 2 and 3. 
8.2. Impact on the internal market and on  stakeholders (other than patentees) 
Option 2, the creation of an EU patent would have the most positive impact on the internal 
market, on the users of patent information and on consumers, as it would integrate the entirety 
of the internal market in terms of patent pr otection. But enhanced cooperation in the area of 
the unitary patent protection (op tion 3) would also increase th e level of integration not only 
between the participating Member States but al so between participating and non-participating 
countries, compared to the baseline scenario. Due to the costs and complexity inherent in the 
current system, European patents are validated  in only a few Member  States today (see 
chapter 4). By implementing enhanced coopera tion, the overall costs and complexity of 
obtaining patent protection throughout the EU  will be significantly reduced. Thus, more 
inventors can be expected to seek patent protec tion by means of a European patent also in the 
Member States that do not partic ipate in the enhanced cooperation.  This is even more likely as 
such EU-wide coverage would f acilitate the protection of inve ntions against products from 
third countries that infringe their patents when  entering the internal market. Therefore, an 
increase in patenting activity can be expected al so in those Member States that do not take 
part in the enhanced cooperation. 
This improved integration will have a positive impact on consumers' access to goods and 
services. A better integrated market will ensure  better cross-border trade and will facilitate 
fight against e.g. counterfeited goods that, inter alia , pose a threat to the health and safety of 
consumers.  
The simplified management of European patents with unitary effect will entail the reduction 
of the tasks of the national patent offices wi th respect to the validation and renewal of 
European patents. The role of the national patent offices with respect to the national patents will remain unchanged. 
As regards the users of patent information, the centralised registration and publication of 
European patents having a unitary effect by th e EPO would facilitate and make cheaper the 
EN 39   EN access to the published patents. Therefore, th e dissemination of knowledge would improve 
that should have a positive impact on innovation in Europe105. Users of patent information 
from third countries would equally benefit fr om the centralisation of  patent information. 
Unitary patent protection will have a positive impact on the competitiveness of the Union and 
will make it a more attractive place to cr eate and innovate, for both European and non-
European inventors. Europe will compare better with other major economies such as the United States, Japan or China. Seeking patent  protection in economies with large consumer 
markets and unitary protectio n systems is more attractive for inventors. While the 
geographical distance from these markets will k eep them hard to access for European SMEs, 
the creation of unitary patent protection in Europe will provide these companies with an opportunity to develop and market  their inventions on a sizeable  market and thereby increase 
the international competitiveness of European economy.  
8.3. Social and environmental impacts 
As explained in section 3.1, patent s can be used to create start- ups, although this is currently 
not common in Europe. Easier and cheaper access to patents is likely to result in an increased 
number of innovative SMEs. SMEs have a major ro le in job creation; they ensure two thirds 
of private sector jobs in Europe
106. The increase in the number of new business, therefore, can 
be expected to have a positive impact on job creation both in participating and non-participating Member States.  
Nonetheless, these positive impacts on European economy come at a price. The reduced 
translation requirements will have an unfav ourable impact on translators working on 
European patents in those pa rticipating countries where th e official language(s) is not 
common with the EPO's official languages. Howeve r, it is important to note that this change 
has already taken place in the countries that joined the Lo ndon Agreement and to a limited 
extent in those the translati on of claims is still required
107. Another importan t element of the 
cost savings for inventors derives from the reduc ed costs of professiona l representation. These 
fees charged by patent attorney s should be lower th an today due to th e single centralised 
procedure replacing country- by-country representation. 
In terms of impact on the envir onment, the options are neutral. 
                                                 
105 The positive impact would further increase when high-quality machine translations become available. 
106 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/ sme/facts-figures-analysis/index_en.htm   
107 The development of high-quality machine translations will also affect this group. 
EN 40   EN Table 13  – Summary of the impacts on stakeholders 
Policy 
Option Impact on 
 Patentees 
(large 
companies)*  Patentees 
(SMEs)*  Patent 
information 
users Consumers Employme nt Translators, 
patent attorneys 
Option 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Option 2 +++ +++ +++ +++ ++ --- 
Option 3.1 ++ ++ ++ ++ + -- 
Option 3.2 ++ + (transitional 
period)  
++ (long term)  ++ ++ + - (transitional 
period)  
-- (long term)  
"0": no change "+": positive impact "-": negative impact 
* Impacts are the same for patentees residing in participating and non-participating Member States. 
8.4. Political feasibility 
As regards political feasibility, while it is clear  that in economic terms an EU 27 patent would 
the most effective, it would bri ng about the highest benefits in terms of the cost reduction and 
simplification, this option is not feasible. This option has been a preferred solution for more than 10 years and has not become a reality. The latest failure of the Council to agree on the 
translation arrangements applicable to EU  patens showed that reaching a unanimous 
agreement remains politically unfeasible. At present, option 1 (base-line scenario) also has low political feasibility as it would also run contrary to the politic al engagement of the 
Commission and the Council to address the pr oblems of the patent system in Europe. 
Table 14
 – Comparing the political feasibility of the options 
Policy Option  Political feasibility  
Option 1 Low 
Option 2 Not possible 
Option 3.1 Not possible 
Option 3.2 High 
The analysis of option 3 shows that although it is not the best  option in economic terms, its 
benefits would still be very important. The sub-options anal ysed provided insight to the 
possible translation arrangements in the fram ework of enhanced cooperation. Although the 
translation regime under sub-option 3.1 would be th e most cost-effective, it is not po litically 
feasible in the short term, fo r the reasons explained in sect ion 7.3.1. Sub-option 3.2 is likely to 
have the widest support among the Member Stat es participating in enhanced cooperation. 
Finally, after the transitional period, the comparative value of this sub-option will increase significantly. Therefore, option 3 with sub-option 3.2 is the preferred option.
 
EN 41   EN The options have no impact on the EU budget. 
9. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
Five years after the start of application, th e Commission will review the application of the 
legislation, with particular attention to the transitional translation arrangements. The legislation on the translation arrangements should provide fo r a regular review of the 
necessity of the transitional measures. 
The creation of unitary patent protection aims to improve  the conditions fo r innovation in 
Europe. Innovation activity is measured by INNO-Metrics, comprising the European 
Innovation Scoreboard and Eurobaro meter. The relevant indexes need to be monitored on an 
annual basis.  
A European patent with unitary effect would coexist with national patents. The relative 
patenting levels between these types of rights should be monito red to ensure that they provide 
adequate solutions for innovators . This can be achieved by an alysing patenting statistics 
published by patent offices in Europe in their annual reports.  
EN 42   EN 10. ANNEX 
Annex I The proportion of patents used to crea te start-ups in eight Member States 
 
Source: Study on evaluating the knowledge economy – what are patents actually worth? The value of patents for 
today's economy and society, 2006. 
EN 43   EN Annex II 
Number of patent applications to the EPO in 2009 
Residence of 
applicants Number of 
applications Residence of 
applicants Number of 
applications 
Austria 1504 Monaco 10 
Belgium 1630 FYROM 0 
Bulgaria 17 Malta 62 
Switzerland 5864 Netherlands 6738 
Cyprus 46 Norway 489 
Czech Republic 136 Poland 173 
Germany 25107 Portugal 107 
Denmark 1488 Romania 13 
Estonia 34 Sweden 3147 
Spain 1258 Slovenia 119 
Finland 1447 Slovakia 25 
France 8929 San Marino 9 
UK 4821 Turkey 191 
Greece  103 Australia 845 
Croatia 21 Canada 2044 
Hungary 114 China 1631 
Ireland 490 Israel 1095 
Iceland 47 Japan 19933 
Italy 3881 Korea 4193 
Lichtenstein 222 Taiwan 1006 
Lithuania 13 US 32966 
Luxembourg 293 Other 2232 
Latvia 49 Total 134.542 
Source: EPO 
EU Member States 
EN 44   EN Annex III 
Domestic and foreign application filed to th e European Patent O ffice (EPO), Japanese 
Patent Office (JPO), Korean Intellectual Pr operty Office (KIPO) and US Patent and 
Trademark Office (USPTO) in 2008/2009 
 
Source: Four Office Statistics Report – 2009 edition 
EN 45   EN Patents granted by the EPO, JPO, KIPO and USPTO in 2008/2009 
 
Source: Four Office Statistics Report – 2009 edition 
EN 46   EN Annex IV 
The London Agreement  
In October 2000 an Intergovernme ntal Conference of the EPC C ontracting States adopted the 
Agreement on the application of Article 65 EP C (London Agreement) in order to reduce the 
costs induced by the validation requirements108. The London Agreement is an optional 
scheme, allowing for collective action to reduce patenting costs by disp ensing with some or 
all translation requirements. It  entered into force on 1 May 2008109. Currently the following 
Member States take part in the agr eement: Germany, Denmark, France, Hungary, 
Luxembourg, Latvia, Lithuania, the Neth erlands, Sweden, Slovenia and the UK. 
Contracting States with an o fficial language in common with one of the EPO official 
languages who are party to the London Agreement are required to dispense entirely with 
translation requirements (Article 1(1)). Within the EU, this applies to France, Germany, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom. 
Contracting States not having an official la nguage in common with one the EPO official 
languages may require a translatio n of the claims into their o fficial language and nominate 
one of the official languages of the EPO into which the description should be translated if this is not the language of proceedings at the EPO (A rticle 1(2) and (3)). Within the EU, Denmark, 
Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands , Slovenia and Sweden require tr anslation of the claims into 
their official language. Of these countries, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Hungary 
have nominated English for translations of the de scription, therefore requiring this translation 
if the patent has been granted in French or German. 
Today sixteen Member States are not parties to the London Agreement and thus require a 
translation of the entire patent  into their official language(s ) (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, 
Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Gr eece, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Poland, Portugal, 
Romania, Slovakia and Spain)
110, mainly for political reasons. 
                                                 
108 OJ EPO 2001, 550.  
109 Other States parties to the Agreement are Swit zerland/Lichtenstein, Croatia, Iceland and FYROM.  
110 It is to note that currently Ireland and Malta do not  require a translation of a European patent into Irish 
and Maltese, it suffices that the European patent is available in English. 
EN 47   EN Figure 10  – Translation requirements under the L ondon Agreement in the Member States111 
 
                                                 
111 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/law/legal-te xts/london-agreement/status.html   
EN 48   EN Annex V 
Cumulated renewal fees in the Member States in EUR* 
Member State TOTAL 6 
years  TOTAL 10 
years  TOTAL 20 
years  
Austria 520 1830 12380 
Belgium 235 775 4340 
Bulgaria  230 971 6493 
Cyprus 247,75 760,33 4262,96 
Czech Republic  247 699 5862 
Germany 360 1420 13170 
Denmark 329 1611 6684 
Estonia  352 1023 5312 
Finland 645 1765 8005 
France 180 782 5572 
Greece  140 655 5915 
Hungary 839 3161 8328 
Ireland 398 1138 4628 
Italy 150 870 6620 
Lithuania 431 1124 4404 
Luxembourg 172 557 2537 
Latvia  507 1470 5215 
Malta 209,64 605,62 2410,89 
Netherlands 300 1540 11040 
Poland  360 893 3793 
Portugal 100 825 5475 
Romania 690 1690 5920 
Slovenia 156 476 5172 
Slovakia 364 1010 5156,5 
Spain  184,71 760,39 4902,97 
Sweden  345 1186 5036 
UK 144 720 3964 
TOTAL 8836,1 30317,34 162598,32 
* Figures are approximate for Member States with national currency other than the euro 
Source: National Law relating to the EPC, 14th Edition, 2009
EN 49   EN Annex VI 
International comparison  of patenting costs 
 
Source: Study on evaluating the knowledge economy – what are patents actually worth? The value of patents for 
today's economy and society, 2006. 
EN 50   EN Annex VII 
The proportion of European patent applic ations compared to the population of the 
Member States 
Member 
State Application/ 
Population (million) 
Austria 180
Belgium 151
Bulgaria 2
Cyprus 57
Czech R. 13
Denmark 269
Estonia 25
Finland 270
France 138
Germany 306
Greece 9
Hungary 11
Ireland 110
Italy 64
Latvia 22
Lithuania 4
Luxembourg 584
Malta 150
Netherlands 407
Poland 4
Portugal 10
Romania 1
Slovakia 5
Slovenia 58
Spain 27
Sweden 337
UK 78
Source: European Commission – calculated on the basis of EPO data (2009) 
Most applications/population