15.3.2023

The Unified Patent Court will start operations on 1 June 2023

The date for the start of operations of the Unified Patent Court has now been finally set as Germany ratified the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (“UPC Agreement”) on 17 February 2023. This was the final ratification required in order for the unitary patent system to enter into force in its entirety. Now altogether 17 EU member states have ratified the UPC Agreement. The Unified Patent Court is expected to start operations on 1 June 2023 when the UPC Agreement enters into force.The unitary patent system will enter into force at the same time.

Towards a unified European patent system

The Unified Patent Court will be the patent court common to all EU member states that have ratified the UPC Agreement. The Unified Patent Court will have exclusive jurisdiction over unitary patents, European patents, supplementary protection certificates of European patents and European patent applications, unless the opt-out mechanism described below is used. The Unified Patent Court will not have any jurisdiction over national patents or supplementary protection certificates granted to national patents. In Finland, the Market Court will still have jurisdiction over national Finnish patents and supplementary protection certificates granted for national Finnish patents in the future as well.

The unitary patent is a new, supranational option for patent protection in Europe. Currently, a European patent must be validated separately 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 will only consist of a one single patent providing patent protection in the EU member states that have ratified the UPC Agreement.

Opt-out possibility began on 1 March 2023

All European patents, supplementary protection certificates of European patents and European patent applications will be transferred under jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court in the beginning of June, unless they are specifically excluded from the Unified Patent Court’s jurisdiction by using the opt-out mechanism. It is possible to use the opt-out even before the UPC Agreement enters into force during the three-month sunrise period which started on 1 March 2023.

After the sunrise period, opt-out is possible during the seven-year transitional period. However, an opt-out can only be used ifno action has already been brought before the Unified Patent Court with respect to the European patent in question. It is highly recommended that companies start reviewing their patent portfolios now at the latest in order to exclude their patents from the Unified Patent Court’s jurisdiction during the sunrise period if considered necessary.

Latest references

We advised Valio Oy in its acquisition of Raisio Oyj’s plant protein business, related fixed assets and the Härkis® and Beanit® fava bean brands. The fixed assets include, among other things, the production equipment of the factory that makes plant protein products in Kauhava. The transaction supports Valio’s strategy to grow from a dairy company to a food company. This business acquisition will make us an even more significant developer and producer of plant-based protein products. The demand for these products will grow in the long term, and a great deal of growth potential still remains. In 2022, we acquired the Gold&Green® business and, since then, we have been carrying out strong product development and renewed the brand. Following successful product launches, sales in the last quarter of 2024 increased by about 50% from the previous quarter. With this acquisition, we are building our own production capacity. The production equipment of the Kauhava factory is just right for our needs and situation. says Kimmo Luoma, Valio’s Senior Vice President. Valio is a Finnish dairy and food company founded in 1905 and owned by Finnish dairy cooperatives. Valio has subsidiaries in Sweden, Estonia, the United States and China. In 2023, the Group had a turnover of EUR 2 278 million and more than 4 000 employees.
Case published 14.2.2025
We successfully represented Arctic Biomaterials Oy before the Finnish Market Court in an extensive dispute concerning alleged patent infringement and invalidity of the patent-in-suit. Our client has invented next-generation bioabsorbable composites that are engineered with Arctic Biomaterials’ X3 bioactive natural mineral fibers, offering robust, bioactive reinforcement for orthopedic implants. These advanced composites empower customers to create high-strength bioabsorbable solutions for the most demanding applications. Back in 2019, Purac Biochem B.V. alleged, among other things, that our client’s Evolvecomp product had infringed Purac Biochem B.V.’s European patent validated in Finland protecting a biocompatible composite and its use. Purac Biochem B.V. filed a preliminary injunction against our client under the Act on Securing the Provision of Evidence in Civil Cases Concerning Industrial Property Rights and Copyright (344/2000). The Finnish Market Court issued an ex-parte injunction against our client on 2 April 2019 (MAO:150/19) and a final injunction on 19 February 2020 (MAO:59/20). Our client had disputed Purac Biochem B.V.’s patent infringement claim from the beginning and claimed that the patent-in-suit was invalid. After five years of litigation, the Finnish Market Court handed down a ruling in the joined invalidity and infringement cases on 10 October 2024 (MAO:560/2024 and MAO:561/2024) declaring Purac Biochem B.V.’s patent invalid and dismissing Purac’s infringement action against Arctic Biomaterials. Also, the preliminary injunction based on an alleged patent infringement imposed against Arctic Biomaterials was cancelled. The Market Court declared Purac Biochem B.V.’s patent invalid due to a lack of inventive step. The Market Court applied the could-would method for determining whether the patent-in-suit is inventive or not. The could-would method is based on determining whether a person skilled in the art would (not simply could, but would) have made a specific improvement to prior solutions, based on the available prior art. The Market Court ruled that it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to solve the objective technical problem of the patent-in-suit in the manner presented in claim 1, using as a starting point the closest prior art (prior patent publication) and combining it with the teaching of another prior art publication. The decision is final.
Case published 29.1.2025
We acted as Finnish counsel to Pernod Ricard in the sale of a portfolio of local Nordic brands to Oy Hartwall Ab, an affiliate of the Danish group Royal Unibrew. Pernod Ricard is a worldwide leader in the spirits and wine industry. The local portfolio of brands includes spirits, liqueurs and Finnish wine brands, the best-known being the liqueur Minttu, along with their related production assets based in Turku, Finland.
Case published 21.10.2024
We acted as the lead counsel to Fortum in a cross-border transaction in which Fortum sold its recycling and waste business. The business was sold to thematic impact investing firm Summa Equity through its portfolio company NG Group. The debt-free purchase price is approximately EUR 800 million.  Fortum’s recycling and waste business to be sold comprises municipal and industrial waste management and end-to-end plastics, metals, ash, slag and hazardous waste treatment and recycling services. These businesses are located in Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway and currently employ approximately 900 employees.
Case published 18.7.2024