The European Patent Office’s (EPO) biennial fee increase is approaching. The EPO has officially announced adjustments to multiple official fees effective April 1, 2026. Most core fees will rise by approximately 5%, while certain fees remain unchanged.
For applicants preparing to file European applications or planning their annual fee strategies, these adjustments will directly impact costs during the application phase, budgets for the examination phase, and long-term maintenance expenses.

1. Key Features of This Price Adjustment
Most key procedural fees increase by approximately 5%;
Certain fees (e.g., online filing fees, opposition fees, appeal fees) remain unchanged;
All renewal fees (starting from the third year) have been systematically increased;
Fees paid before April 1, 2026, remain subject to the old rates. Under EPO regulations, annual fees may be paid up to three months in advance. This means any annual fee due by the end of June 2026 can be paid at the current rates before the end of March.

2. Key Official Fee Adjustment Comparison (Before vs. After April 1, 2026)

1) Fees for Application and Examination Stages

Item	Before Adjustment (€)	After Adjustment (€)	Change
Online Application Fee	135	135	Unchanged
Europe/Supplementary Search Fee	1,520	1,595	↑Approx. 5%
Designation Fee	685	720	↑Approx. 5%
Substantive Examination Fee	1,915	2,010	↑Approx. 5%
Grant and Publication Fee	1,080	1,135	↑Approx. 5%

(Source: EPO published fee schedule)

2) Claim surcharge

Item	Before Adjustment (€)	After Adjustment (€)	Change
Claims beyond the scope fee (Claims 16–50)	275 /claim	290 /claim	↑Approx. 5%

3) Opposition and Appeal Fees (Remain Unchanged)

Fees for oppositions and appeals remain unchanged.

4) Annual Fees (Increase effective from the 3rd year)

Annual	Before adjustment (€)	Adjusted (€)
Year 3	690	725
Year 4	845	885
Year 5	1,000	1,050
Year 6	1,155	1,215
Year 7	1,310	1,375
Year 8	1,465	1,540
Year 9	1,620	1,700
Year 10-20 (annual)	1,775	1,865

 

3. Practical Impact on Applicants

The total cost of European applications will increase, with rises in search fees, examination fees, and authorization fees. This means that the official costs for a single standard European application will increase by approximately €200–300 (excluding agent fees).

 

4. Clear “Early Payment Strategy Window” Emerges

The EPO has clarified that paying due fees before April 1, 2026, will avoid the increases.

Therefore, in Q1 2026, it is recommended to prioritize evaluating:

• Whether to prepay examination fees
• Whether to prepay annual fees
• Whether to enter the European phase early

For applications where a decision has been made to enter the European phase, it is advisable to complete the entry procedures before April 1. This can save between two hundred and three hundred euros in official fees.

In recent years, the interpretation of the term “first marketing authorisation” in Article 3(d) of the EU Supplementary Protection Certificate Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 469/2009, hereinafter the SPC Regulation) has given rise to significant divergence in European judicial practice and has triggered ongoing legal controversy.

Under Article 3(d) of the SPC Regulation, one of the prerequisites for the grant of an SPC is that the relevant “product” (i.e. the active ingredient or combination of active ingredients) must not previously have obtained a marketing authorisation as a medicinal product in the European Union. Once any earlier marketing authorisation exists for the same product, a subsequent authorisation will, in principle, no longer qualify as a “first marketing authorisation”. A series of recent cases has centred precisely on the interpretation of this provision.

I. Factual Background of the Boehringer Case

Boehringer Ingelheim has recently attracted considerable attention in the pharmaceutical and patent community as a result of two parallel decisions relating to its SPC application activities.

The essential facts of the case may be summarised as follows:

Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH applied for an SPC for its product Aservo® EquiHaler®, on the basis of its European patent EP 2 934 479 (entitled “Ciclesonide for the Treatment of Respiratory Diseases in Horses”) and a veterinary medicinal product marketing authorisation (MA) granted by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2020. This marketing authorisation was issued pursuant to Directive 2001/82/EC (the Veterinary Medicinal Products Directive).

It is noteworthy that this was the first veterinary marketing authorisation in the EU for a medicinal product containing ciclesonide as the active ingredient. During the marketing authorisation procedure, the EMA classified ciclesonide as a “new active substance” within the meaning of Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, and on that basis required the applicant to submit a full set of clinical data.

II. The Decision of the District Court of The Hague: Strict “Product-Centred Formalism”

As anticipated, the SPC application met with differing outcomes in different Member States. The decision of the District Court of The Hague is particularly noteworthy.

The Hague court refused to grant an SPC based on the above-mentioned veterinary MA, on the ground that:

prior to that veterinary MA, a human medicinal product marketing authorisation based on the same active ingredient, ciclesonide, already existed.

The core reasoning of the court may be summarised as follows:

1. The definition of “product” in Article 1(b) of the SPC Regulation refers exclusively to the active ingredient as such, and does not encompass the intended use, therapeutic indication, or regulatory classification (human or veterinary).
2. Once an active ingredient has previously been the subject of a marketing authorisation, irrespective of whether that authorisation concerns a human or a veterinary medicinal product, the requirement of a “first marketing authorisation” under Article 3(d) is no longer fulfilled.
3. The assessment of whether an authorisation constitutes a “first marketing authorisation” is a normative issue of patent law, falling within the competence of patent authorities and courts, and not within the remit of medicinal product regulatory authorities.

This decision reflects a highly formalistic approach that relies exclusively on the concept of the “product” as the sole decisive criterion.

III. Referral of the German Case: The Question Returns to the Court of Justice

Boehringer also filed a corresponding SPC application in Germany. In 2023, the application was initially rejected by the German Patent and Trademark Office (GPTO) on the ground of non-compliance with Article 3(d) of the SPC Regulation, for the same reason, namely that:

another company had already obtained a marketing authorisation in 2005 for a human medicinal product containing ciclesonide (for the treatment of asthma).

The applicant appealed against this decision. By decision of 12 December 2025, the 14th Senate of the German Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht) stayed the national proceedings and referred the following question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling:

Is Article 3(d) of the SPC Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that a marketing authorisation for a veterinary medicinal product granted under Directive 2001/82/EC constitutes the first marketing authorisation of that product as a medicinal product, even if the same active ingredient of that product has previously been authorised as a human medicinal product under Directive 2001/83/EC?

IV. The Shadow of the Neurim and Santen Case Law

Readers familiar with SPC case law will readily recall the landmark judgment of the CJEU in Neurim (C-130/11, 2012).

The factual sequence in Neurim was the reverse of the present case:

Neurim concerned a veterinary MA followed by a human MA (melatonin for the treatment of human sleep disorders), whereas the Boehringer case involves a human MA followed by a veterinary MA. Substantively, however, the two situations are highly comparable, in that:

a known active ingredient was classified by the EMA as a “new active substance” under a different regulatory pathway and requires submission of full clinical data.

In Neurim, the CJEU held that, for the purposes of Article 3(d), it is necessary to examine whether the earlier marketing authorisation covered the same therapeutic use as that protected by the basic patent. On that basis, the Court allowed the grant of an SPC based on a second medical use human MA.

However, this “scope-of-protection-oriented” approach was expressly abandoned by the CJEU in Santen (C-673/18, 2020). In Santen, the Court reverted to a strict product-centred interpretation, rejecting the possibility of granting SPCs based solely on new therapeutic indications.

Importantly, the Santen judgment did not address the following specific scenario:

namely, how Article 3(d) should be applied where a known active ingredient is nevertheless classified by the regulatory authority as a “new active substance”, thereby triggering a full, stand-alone marketing authorisation procedure.

V. The Position of the German Court and Systemic Considerations

In its referral decision, the German Federal Patent Court clearly tends to regard the veterinary MA at issue as a “first marketing authorisation” within the meaning of Article 3(d), despite the existence of an earlier human MA.

This position is primarily based on the legislative purpose of the SPC system, in particular:

• clinical data generated under Directive 2001/83/EC (human medicinal products) generally cannot be directly relied upon to accelerate authorisation procedures under Directive 2001/82/EC (veterinary medicinal products), and vice versa;
• denying SPC protection solely because of the existence of an earlier human or veterinary MA may, in practice, lead to genuine gaps in protection;
• such an interpretation may also undermine incentives for pharmaceutical companies to invest in research and development in cross-sector areas (human/veterinary).

VI. Conclusion: Awaiting Further Clarification from the Court of Justice

The referral by the German court provides the CJEU with an important opportunity to further systematise and clarify its case law between the Neurim and Santen lines of authority.

Regardless of the eventual outcome, the decision is likely to have implications far beyond the individual case and will significantly influence future SPC applications across the EU in situations involving the interaction between human and veterinary medicinal products.

Trademarks as an indication of origin

Brand names and logos are associated with companies and their products. An advertising slogan is an equally decisive factor for recognition or origin.

Famous slogans that have been successfully registered as EU trademarks include “Just do it” (Nike), “Think different” (Apple), “Vorsprung durch Technik” (Audi) or “i’m lovin it” (McDonalds).

In order to register slogans as trademarks, it must be proven that they are not only descriptive or laudatory of the goods and services, but often also that they are sufficiently different from the usual signs of other companies.

Protect advertising slogans

Applicants who wish to register a slogan as a trademark in the trademark register must therefore prove its distinctiveness. In addition, a slogan must not be descriptive, which means that it must not describe either the nature or the intended purpose of the goods or services applied for.

However, assessing the distinctiveness of a slogan is not always easy in practice.

Such slogans can be excluded from registration due to lack of distinctiveness if they are perceived by the usual customers only as a positive advertising message, but not as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods and services.

It should also be noted that the examination of whether a slogan is distinctive must take place separately for each product or service. A slogan may be registrable for certain products, but not for others.

What can increase the likelihood of success for trademark registration of a slogan?

Distinctiveness of slogans

The chance that a slogan will be regarded or judged as distinctive (and thus protectable under trademark law) is regularly increased if it follows several of the following guidelines:

• The slogan should be short.
• It should allow for multiple meanings and thus room for interpretation regarding its meaning.
• He should have a special originality and conciseness.
• It should have a play on words or unusual linguistic or stylistic devices.

The more of these specifications apply to the slogan, the greater the chance of being able to have the slogan protected as a trademark.

Registration of slogans as an EU trademark

The central application for an EU trademark (also EU trademark) is made through the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

If the Office determines during the examination of the application that there are no absolute grounds for refusal (such as lack of distinctiveness), the slogan can be registered in the trademark register in the corresponding class of goods and/or services.

Caution: The Office does not check whether a conflict with already existing trademarks is caused in connection with the trademark application. The application for a slogan should always be preceded by a preliminary search to rule out the possibility that identical or similar slogans exist as trademarks. (See also: Relevance of a preliminary trademark search, 5/2019).

The application grants the owner unitary, EU-wide trademark protection. If no opposition is filed within 3 months of registration, the applicant is considered the trademark owner, whose trademark enjoys protection for 10 years. After this period, the trademark protection can be renewed for another 10 years at a time.

The Unified Patent Court (UPC)

The Unified Patent Court has been dealing with patent disputes – both infringement actions and nullity actions – at European level since June 1, 2023.

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court has its seat in Luxembourg, while the Court of First Instance is divided among three central chambers and national local and regional chambers. In Germany, local chambers have opened in Düsseldorf, Mannheim, Munich and Hamburg.

Most of the proceedings filed with the EPG to date are infringement proceedings. Some nullity actions have already been filed with the central chamber in Munich.

European Central Chambers

At the end of June, the UPC Administrative Committee announced that the third seat of the central chambers, in addition to Munich and Paris, will be in Milan. The responsibilities of the central chambers in Germany, France and Italy were divided according to the sections of the International Patent Classification (IPC) as follows.

Mailand will be responsible for Section A patents (daily living necessities, excluding supplementary protection certificates).

Munich will be responsible for Section C patents (chemistry; metallurgy) and Section F (mechanical engineering; lighting; heating; weapons; blasting).

Paris is responsible for patents in Section B (work processes; transportation), Section D (textiles; paper), Section E (construction; earth drilling; mining), Section G (physics), Section H (electrical engineering), and supplementary protection certificates.

The central chamber in Milan is expected to start work by June 2024. Due to the Brexit – for the originally planned central chamber in London – the intended responsibilities had to be reorganized and distributed.

Languages of proceedings at the court locations

For the Court of Appeal, the language of the proceedings shall in principle be the language used in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

It was recently announced that the local departments in Germany, France and Italy, in addition to the respective national language, will also offer English procedures.

An overview of the procedural languages before the local or regional chambers: here.

Opt Out

Towards the end of the Sunrise period, a sharp increase in “opt out” declarations was recorded.

Many patent owners of already existing European patents accordingly requested that the responsibilities for maintaining and enforcing the individual national rights should continue to lie with the national patent offices and national courts. According to initial estimates, the proportion of patents that were withdrawn from the new jurisdiction was nearly 40%.

Representatives before the UPC

4,469 persons have applied to be representatives before the Unified Patent Court and have been registered after verification by the EPC Registry. Germany currently has the highest number of UPC representatives (approx. 44% of all representatives of the participating EU states).

A majority of karo IP’s patent attorneys have obtained the European Patent Litigation Certificate (EPLC), which qualifies them as European patent attorneys to appear before the UPC Court and represent their clients’ interests in patent litigation. (search for representatives).

We have summarized general information on the Unitary patent on our website.

Metaverse and NFTs

Metaverse refers to a 3D virtual space that can bring new and innovative opportunities for companies and their product marketing.

In this online world, customers can act as digitally animated avatars and shop for digital clothing, shoes and accessories, for example. Using VR glasses or augmented reality, people control their metaverse avatars with their own movements.

NFTs (non-fungible tokens) play a central role here. NFTs are virtual certificates for shares in digital objects or works. They are used to secure the digital goods in the blockchain and certify their authenticity and ownership. More information on Trademark law and NFTs in our February 2022 blog.

Trademark protection in the metaverse

It is to be expected that new business models will develop in the area of virtual goods in the next few years and that trademark law will thus also gain in importance in the digital environment. Trademark applicants should protect their business model as broadly as possible under trademark law in order to protect themselves from imitators.

In order to be able to ensure trademark protection for digital products, it can be an interesting option to register trademarks for virtual goods and NFTs. Our specialists will be happy to advise you on this.

Documents of use in the grace period

To meet the rights-preserving requirements of trademark law, the trademark owner must introduce and use the registered trademark – within 5 years from registration – on the market. Otherwise, the trademark protection may lapse.

If the application for a virtual trademark is not followed by any use of it in the virtual space, the trademark application may accordingly become ready for cancellation.

For more information on proof of use during the grace period, see our article: Proof of use of a registered trademark.

Supervision of third party trademark applications

Due to the decentralized nature of the metaverse and the fact that it is not yet possible to foresee how this virtual market will develop, there is also a risk of trademark infringement for trademark owners in this market.

For example, there have been recent disputes by prominent companies in U.S. courts. Nike, a sporting goods manufacturer, sued a metaverse marketplace that offered sports shoe images as NFTs. Hermès sued an artist who sold digital artwork of a Hermès product through an NFT marketplace.

Trademark monitoring of virtual goods and NFTs is therefore advisable, because it makes it possible to take timely action if it becomes apparent that there is a significant risk of confusion with the registered trademark.

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

According to the EUIPO, applications for virtual products and NFTs have been filed mainly in classes 9, 18 or 25 (“downloadable software / virtual goods” and “non-fungible tokens”) or for the services, such as online stores for virtual products (classes 35, 41 or 42).

According to the EUIPO opinion, services related to virtual goods and NFT should be classified according to the established principles for the classification of services.

Counterfeit products on the Internet

The Internet as a transshipment point for pirated goods

Counterfeit products are now also distributed on a large scale via e-commerce – the global trade of goods via online marketplaces, websites and social media. The copied branded goods are no longer only transported to the target markets by shipping containers, but increasingly via mail as individual parcels.

Against product piracy – cooperation with customs

According to the annual statistics of the German customs, counterfeit goods worth 315 million euros were seized in 2021. This is about 25% more than in the previous year.

IPR holders are strongly advised to collect evidence (e.g., screenshots, web links, …) in the course of carefully monitoring online trading venues if it is determined that an online store or website is trading in a copy of the goods.

Customs can seize the counterfeit products when they are imported into or exported from Germany. The decisive factor is that the infringement is obvious.

It is also a requirement that the products and goods must be protected by patent or trademark law and that the trademark must have been registered in all countries in which the manufacturer operates. In addition, customs can also seize counterfeits imported from non-EU countries, provided that a commercial purpose is evident at the time of importation.

Internet monitoring: search for infringing imitations

Counterfeit products in the e-commerce sector can also be detected or identified with the use of machine-learning-based software.

The tools automatically search for counterfeits on websites, online marketplaces as well as on social media channels and enable counterfeit goods offers to be found regardless of language, time of day and country borders.

Reporting systems

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) is working with various online marketplaces to combat product piracy. A large number of marketplaces have now set up reporting systems through which companies and consumers can report anomalies.

Defending innovation and intellectual property against the attack of product pirates

The most effective protection strategy is the early filing and registration of intellectual property rights. To prevent intellectual property infringement, we advise our clients on the extent to which the product in question is protectable and what product adaptations can be made to obtain patent, trademark or design protection.

Only with registered property rights can legal action against product and trademark piracy be efficiently initiated. karo IP Patentanwälte supports clients in obtaining preliminary injunctions, in border seizure proceedings and in asserting claims for information, damages and destruction.

Prevent trademark infringement

Trademark owners should continuously monitor trademark registers with regard to new trademark registrations, because the Trademark Office does not protect you from third parties applying for a trademark that is similar or identical. Trademark monitoring serves in particular as a tool to identify potential infringement of your trademark at an early stage.

No trademark search with examination of similarity ex officio

The databases of the GPTO, EUIPO and WIPO contain all trademarks applied for and registered. However, when applying for a new trademark, these trademark offices do not check ex officio whether similar or identical trademarks are already registered in the register.

This can lead to third parties applying for a trademark that is similar or identical to one’s own trademark.

Regular monitoring of trademark registers

Continuous trademark monitoring can ensure that applications for similar or identical third-party trademarks are detected at an early stage. Since trademarks are generally subject to a compulsory use, infringement of your existing trademark can be countered in good time.

In principle, the trademark owner himself can carry out the verification whether similar or identical trademarks have been applied for or registered in the register.

However, it should be noted that the monitoring of the registers is time-consuming and complex. As a trademark owner of a German trademark, for example, not only German trademarks, but also EU trademarks and internationally registered trademarks with scope of protection for Germany must be monitored. As a trademark owner of an EU trademark, all national trademarks of the EU must also be monitored.

Trademark monitoring often leads to many similar trademark applications, so that a trademark law analysis is often required as to whether or with what success action could be taken against it – accompanying this monitoring with a lawyer is therefore advantageous.

Keep an eye on newly filed trademarks

As part of a professional search, our trademark experts search the databases of the trademark registers as well as fee-based databases for trademark monitoring.

• All new trademarks or trademark applications filed with the national and international trademark offices are constantly monitored.
• A search is made for identical trademarks (identity search).
• A search is conducted for trademarks in which word elements, spelling or a figurative element are similar (similarity search).
• The classes of goods and services are examined.

Trademark monitoring makes it possible to take timely action if it becomes apparent that there is a significant risk of confusion with your trademark.

Our trademark experts support you in ensuring sustainable trademark protection. The costs of a trademark monitoring are manageable. Feel free to contact us.

Proceeding upon detection of an unwanted trademark registration

If it is determined that a younger trademark overlaps and/or impairs the scope of protection of your trademark, an opposition can be filed in many cases, for which the trademark owner only has three months after the publication of the younger trademark. For the opposition proceedings, the monitoring measures taken and the search report must be fully documented.

Usually, before the opposition proceedings are conducted, you will be given sufficient time to reach an off-the-record agreement with the other trademark applicant. In this way, it can be achieved that the other trademark applicant limits its scope of protection and/or that its use of the trademark is restricted. This can be recorded in writing in a so-called delimitation agreement. If such an agreement is reached before the start of the opposition proceedings, you will even receive your official opposition fee back.

If the objection deadline is missed, a potentially complex deletion procedure can be initiated. Civil action (injunctive relief, compensation for damages) is also possible.