Lately, there has been a lot of discussion around the UPC and European patents with unitary effect. But what is the UPC and what does it mean in practice? What are European patents with unitary effect and how do they differentiate from the traditional European patents?
21.2.2017
The Unified Patent System – Where Do We Stand Now?
Hanna Paloheimo, Piia Raappana & Sakari Salonen
Related services
Towards an Enhanced European Patent System
First of all, the UPC relates to the European-wide patent reform. The UPC, which is an abbreviation for the Unified Patent Court, is a planned single patent court covering 25 EU member states. If established, the UPC would be a common court to all member states contracting to the Unified Patent Court Agreement.
The purpose is that the UPC would have exclusive jurisdiction over both future European patents with unitary effect, European patents validated in one or more EU member state which is a party to the Unified Patent Court Agreement, supplementary protection certificates issued for a product covered by such a patent and European patent applications − the jurisdiction, however, being subject to certain exceptions during the transitional period. The UPC’s rulings would have effect in those contracting member states that have ratified the Unified Patent Court Agreement. The UPC would not have any jurisdiction over national patents or supplementary protection certificates granted for a national patent. After the reform, the Finnish Market Court would still have jurisdiction over Finnish national patents and supplementary protection certificates granted for a Finnish patent.
The European patent with unitary effect − the unitary patent − would be a new, supranational option to have patent protection in Europe. At the moment a European patent needs to be validated in each contracting state where patent protection is desired. This means in practice that a patent holder has a bundle of national patents. A unitary patent would only consist of a one single patent providing patent protection in the member states who are participating in the enhanced cooperation procedure.
After the reform, unitary patents and traditional European patents will be granted by European Patent Office (EPO). The pre-grant phase at the EPO is not subject to change. When the EPO has granted a European patent, the patent holder can file a request for unitary effect, i.e., a uniform patent protection in the participating member states.
When Will All This Happen?
To date, the implementation of the unified patent system is still ongoing. In order for the entire system to come into force, the Unified Patent Court Agreement must be ratified by at least thirteen EU member states (including the high-profile patent countries: the UK, France and Germany). At the moment, the following member states have ratified the agreement: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden. Last autumn, the UK government confirmed it is continuing with preparations for ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement despite Brexit.
According to the latest information, the UPC Preparatory Committee, which is an entity responsible for establishment of the UPC, is currently working under the assumption that the Provisional Application Phase (PAP) will start this spring, most likely in May 2017. In practice, the PAP means that the UPC organisation will be established.
The assumption is that the Unified Patent Court Agreement will enter into force and the UPC will become operational in December of this year. Before the UPC becomes operational, the patent holders or applicants have the possibility to opt out their already-existing European patents or patent applications from the new UPC system for the whole life-time of that patent. This sunrise period for opting out patents will be a minimum of 3 months. The current plan is that the opt-out period will start in September 2017. As the sunrise period is somewhat short, it is worth making some contingency plans in this regard and considering implementing the opt-out (if so desired) already in the beginning of the sunrise period in order have sufficient time to deal with any possible queries or difficulties in the opt-out registration procedure.
Latest news
Latest references
Fortum – AI workshop
We delivered two AI workshops for Fortum Corporation’s Mergers and Acquisitions team, with both legal and business professionals participating. The sessions combined fundamental AI principles with custom use cases for commercially available AI tools tailored to Fortum’s needs. We also presented a bespoke solution merging AI with a script-based tool developed by our Legal Tech team, enabling a more automated way of working. Our experts conducted the training drawing on their legal background and leading experience in this emerging field of legal technology. Participants particularly appreciated the clarity and relevance of the implementations demonstrated. ‘C&S delivered an excellent, well-structured series of workshops, with directly applicable takeaways,’ says Sabina Hautaviita, Legal Counsel for M&A at Fortum.
Case published 9.3.2026
VR – Supreme Court decision clarifies working time practices
We successfully represented VR Group before the Supreme Court in a case concerning the meal break practice of commuter train drivers. On 6 February 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in VR’s favour (decision KKO:2026:12), confirming that VR had the right to amend the commuter train drivers’ meal break practice in 2021 by rendering the break unpaid in accordance with the applicable collective agreement. This decision clarifies the interpretation of collective agreements and employment legislation as well as the limits of the employer’s right to direct work. Over 250 commuter train drivers challenged the unpaid meal break practice which VR introduced in April 2021. Before the change, meal breaks had a long history of being paid. The change was based on the train drivers’ collective agreement, which allows for meal breaks to be organised either as paid or unpaid time. The Supreme Court ruled that the scheduling and managing of breaks falls within the core area of the employer’s right to direct work. This increases the threshold for an established practice becoming a binding condition for the parties. Merely following a practice consistently and over a long period of time does not make the practice binding; instead, the employer’s intent to commit to the practice must be clearly evident from the employer’s conduct or other circumstances. As both alternatives – paid and unpaid – for organising meal breaks had been retained in the collective agreement despite other amendments over the years, it could not be considered that VR had intended to commit to the paid break practice and waive its right to direct work as regards break scheduling. It was also significant that the employment contracts explicitly referred only to the collective agreement as regards working time. The Supreme Court deemed that the employees’ paid meal break was not an established term of employment and that VR was entitled to change the practice based on the collective agreement. The employer had the right, by virtue of its right to direct work, to unilaterally change the meal break practice by choosing to apply the other arrangement permitted by the collective agreement.
Case published 3.3.2026
CapMan Growth – Investment in Kuntokeskus Liikku
We are assisting CapMan Growth in its significant investment in Kuntokeskus Liikku, a Finnish gym chain known for its high-quality self-service facilities and excellent value for money. The investment will further strengthen Liikku’s position as a market leader and support the continued execution of its growth strategy. Liikku is one of Finland’s leading fitness chains, with more than 70 locations across the country serving nearly 90,000 members. The company’s concept is to offer high-quality self-service gyms at an exceptionally competitive price point which, combined with strong operational efficiency, provides a solid foundation for profitable growth. The company’s main shareholder is COR Group, a long-time partner of CapMan Growth, and a Finnish health and wellness conglomerate known for active ownership and long-term value creation. CapMan Growth is a leading Finnish growth investor that makes significant investments in entrepreneur-led growth companies with a turnover of €10–200 million. CapMan Growth is part of CapMan, which is a leading Nordic private equity investor engaged in active value creation work. CapMan has been listed on the Helsinki Stock Exchange since 2001.
Case published 27.2.2026
Terrafame – Environmental and water management permit processes concerning the company’s entire operations and the KL1 side rock area
Castrén & Snellman successfully assisted Terrafame Ltd in environmental and water management permit processes concerning the company’s entire operations and the KL1 side rock area, on which the Supreme Administrative Court issued its decision on 12 February 2026 (KHO 366/2026 and 367/2026). The changes made to the decisions of the Vaasa Administrative Court as a result of Terrafame’s appeals, enable the company to implement its new strategy and develop its operations as planned. The decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court brought the nearly ten-year-long permit process to a close.
Case published 20.2.2026