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.

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.

Research on patents and patent applications

There are different forms of searches.

Novelty of Invention: The novelty search is used to determine whether the invention meets the patentability requirement of novelty and what is already known about the invention before filing a patent application.

State of the art: When making a strategic decision to enter a new market, it is important to get a rough overview of freely available or already patented ideas. Prior art searches provide an overview of patent publications in a technical field and allow identification of favorable starting positions and/or necessary partnerships. [See also Blog 6/20]

Freedom-to-Operate (FTO): FTO analyses are used to check whether a particular technology may be used or whether existing third-party property rights are infringed. The more precisely the product or technology characteristics are known, the more targeted this comprehensive search can be prior to market launch. [See also Blog 2/19]

Opposition Search/Invalidity Search: In order to oppose the grant of a patent of a third party right, it is possible to show that the examiner has not yet reviewed all relevant prior art documents and as a result the patent should be revoked for lack of novelty or inventive step. Finding such prior art documents is the subject of this search.

Patent search in online databases

In the international full-text databases of the German Patent and Trademark Office (Depatisnet), the European Patent Office (Espacenet) and WIPO (Patentscope), information on patents and utility models published worldwide can be searched free of charge. [database links]

This can be done as part of an in-house search, by commissioning search institutes or by cooperating with patent attorneys.

Setting filters when searching patent databases

In addition to the possibilities of searching for patents by words or combinations of words, or searching specifically by title, patent number, application, or by inventor name, it is advisable to consider how to usefully limit the search for relevant publications, for example:

• Search by country scope: search for German or European patents or PCT applications
• Search of specific fields of technology: Search by patent class (International Patent Classification – IPC)
• Research for specific competitors
• Research within a certain period

Patent attorney assistance in developing a search strategy

A meaningful search is complex and the approach depends strongly on the objective. Our patent attorneys advise companies, inventors and start-ups on patent searches in all technical fields and assist in the development of search strategies.

We also use non-official, fee-based patent and specialist databases, which offer more comprehensive search options and support in the preparation or statistical analysis of the search results. This allows for a more targeted and cost-efficient search.

Costs of a patent search

The costs incurred in the course of a patent search depend on the search effort, the complexity of the subject matter, the number of IP rights to be analyzed, etc.

As a non-binding guideline, you can expect the following costs for the various forms of patent search:

• New product research:
  approx. 1,000 – 1,500 EUR plus VAT
• State of the art – research:
  approx. 3,000 – 4,500 EUR plus VAT
• Freedom-to-Operate (FTO) – Research:
  approx. 5,000 – 8,000 EUR plus VAT
• Opposition / nullity search:
  approx. 3,000 – 5,500 EUR plus VAT

If the results of the search are still to be legally evaluated, further costs will be incurred depending on the effort involved.

DMPA: Patent Law Modernization Act

The 2nd Patent Law Modernization Act for new regulations in patent law and other areas of IP protection was prepared for the long term and came into force on August 18, 2021.

We reported on the planned new regulations in patent law for proceedings before the DPMA back in February 2020.

Extension of time limit for international applications (PCT)

From May 1, 2022, applicants will have 1 month longer to initiate the national phase at the DPMA.

The relevant period has been extended from 30 to 31 months from the filing or priority date so far.

The new deadline applies to all applications for which the previous deadline (30 months) for nationalization has not yet passed on May 01, 2022.

Inventor Appointment

Also on May 1, 2022, the inventor’s name and location must be mentioned in patent publications and in the register. The omission of the publication of these data can be requested by the inventor.

Fees for joint applicants

Already in effect on August 18, 2021, is the provision that joint owners or applicants will be treated as one applicant for fee purposes. In the past, fees were determined by head count.

This applies both in proceedings before the DPMA and in appeal proceedings.

Increase in annual fees

In addition to the Second Patent Modernization Act, the Act on Further Tasks of the German Patent and Trademark Office and Amending the Patent Costs Act entered into force on September 7, 2021.

As of July 1, 2022, the fees for maintaining patent applications or patents, starting from the 5th year, will be increased.

Second Patent Law Simplification and Modernization Act

The full proclamation is available online on the homepage of the BMJ.