Unitary patent vs european and national filings: Costs, fees and strategy

25.5.2026 | ARROWS law firm

This article explains when the Unitary Patent is a genuine cost-saving option for your company, how the fees work in practice, and what strategic implications the choice between a Unitary Patent, a traditional European patent, and national filings has in real-world use.

The illustrative image shows a lawyer consulting on the Unitary Patent.

What the Unitary European Patent is and how it fits into the innovation protection system
Costs and savings: how much you actually save on fees
Renewal fees for the Unitary Patent: exactly EUR 4,555 for the first ten years
Comparison with a classic European patent: when the savings come
When the Unitary European Patent pays off from a company strategy perspective
Specifics for Czech companies and investors
Final summary

Introductory summary

The decision whether to use the Unitary European Patent has a direct impact on your IP budget and on how easily you will be able to enforce patents across the EU. As a rule, the Unitary Patent saves costs if you would otherwise validate a European patent in at least four EU Member States. This is due to a single renewal fee and the elimination of validation and translation costs.

In the first ten years, which is the average lifespan of a European patent, you will pay exactly EUR 4,555 in renewal fees for a Unitary Patent, whereas a classic European patent validated in multiple countries can reach several times higher amounts.

On the other hand, you need to factor in that any dispute before the Unified Patent Court (UPC) will be a more significant financial investment, especially after the increase in court fees as of 1 March 2024. However, the court’s decision has effect across the entire territory of the participating states.

For Czech entrepreneurs, it is also essential to understand that the Czech Republic is not yet fully involved in the system. If your patent strategy is tied to a broader corporate structure (e.g., IP holding, licensing within a group, or investor entry), it is useful to align it with Corporate & Holding services in the Czech Republic. It is therefore necessary to combine the Unitary Patent with a classic European patent or a national patent to ensure protection on the Czech market as well. When setting up such a protection strategy and the related contractual arrangements, ongoing work on contracts and negotiations can also help.

What the Unitary European Patent is and how it fits into the innovation protection system

The Unitary European Patent (often referred to as the “Unitary Patent” or European patent with unitary effect ) is not a new type of application. It is a special regime for an already granted European patent that gives it unitary effect in the territory of the EU Member States participating in this system.

An entrepreneur or research organisation first files a classic European patent application under the European Patent Convention (EPC) and goes through the standard proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO), including the search and substantive examination.

Only after the European patent is granted does the owner decide whether to request “unitary effect” or to remain within the classic system of national validations and individual national patents derived from the European patent.

The essence of unitary effect is that the scope of protection, its duration, limitations and remedies are the same in all participating states; the patent has a unitary nature and cannot be split—it may be limited, transferred or revoked only as a whole for all of these states.

The European patent with unitary effect was introduced on the basis of two EU regulations which, together with the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA), form the so-called patent package.

The system started operating when the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court entered into force, which happened after ratification by Germany and other states. It has been fully operational since June 2023. For a practical overview of the Unitary Patent system and enforcement via the UPC, see Unitary European patent and UPC: Key benefits and enforcement in 2023. If you are also dealing with the transactional side of innovation (e.g., an investor entering or a sale of an ownership interest), it may be useful to review how the final price is determined in a company sale: closing accounts vs. locked box.

From that date, the owner of a European patent may request “unitary effect” for states that participate in enhanced cooperation and that, at the same time, had ratified the UPCA at that moment. Protection therefore does not automatically apply to all EU Member States, but only to those that have met both conditions.

Importantly, the request for unitary effect is filed directly with the EPO and within one month of the publication of the grant of the European patent in the European Patent Bulletin; after it is filed in time and the formal requirements are met, the EPO will record the unitary effect in the register.

Territorial scope and the current number of participating states

The Unitary Patent applies only to those Member States of the European Union that participate in the enhanced cooperation system in the area of unitary patent protection and are also contracting parties to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court as of the date the unitary effect is registered.

In practice, this means that the Unitary Patent cannot automatically cover all EU countries. If you are planning an acquisition or investment where IP coverage across jurisdictions is a key value driver, the transaction perspective is addressed in How to Prepare a Company for Sale: Legal and Tax Issues That Most Often Derail the Entire Transaction. Some Member States participate in the system but have not yet ratified the UPCA; others have not joined the enhanced cooperation.

As of today (2026), the Unitary Patent provides unitary protection in 18 Member States, including major markets such as Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands, as well as smaller states including Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Austria, Slovenia, Sweden and Greece.

This list is dynamic only for new Unitary Patents in the sense that additional states may ratify the system in the future. However, for a Unitary Patent that has already been registered, the territorial scope does not change over time—it remains fixed based on the status as of the date the unitary effect was registered.

From an entrepreneur’s perspective, it is important that the Unitary Patent will never be valid in countries that are not EU members, even if they are members of the European Patent Convention, such as the United Kingdom, Switzerland or Norway.

For these countries, it is therefore always necessary to use a classic European patent with national validation or national patent applications directly. If innovation protection is also reflected in a transaction, it is often useful to have transactional risks and their description in the documentation under control; see risk catalogue under control: how to properly prepare a Disclosure Letter. The Unitary Patent provides no protection here. Similarly, the Unitary Patent does not yet cover some EU Member States, such as Spain or Poland, which have not joined the system or have not ratified the UPCA. In these countries, it is necessary to proceed in a similar way via the classic route.

In terms of costs and strategy, the Unitary Patent typically forms one pillar of protection (for the participating states). It is complemented by classic European or national patents for other key territories that are relevant to the business.

Relationship to the Czech Republic: you will obtain protection in the EU, but not in the Czech Republic yet

The Czech Republic is a member of the European Patent Organisation and has been participating in the European patent system for a long time. However, it has not yet ratified the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court and is therefore not fully involved in the unitary patent system.

For Czech applicants, this has two key consequences: first, the unitary patent does not provide protection in the territory of the Czech Republic. If they want protection in the Czech Republic as well, they must validate their European patent for the Czech Republic under the traditional regime or file a purely national patent application with the Industrial Property Office (Úřad průmyslového vlastnictví).

Second, the mere fact that the Czech Republic is not a participating state does not prevent Czech entrepreneurs from using the unitary patent for the other participating countries. They can request unitary effect for those states in the same way as entrepreneurs from any other EU Member State.

If a Czech applicant does not have a place of business in any of the participating states, the law of the state in which the European Patent Organisation is headquartered applies—i.e., German law.

In practice, this means that Czech companies that choose the unitary patent find this asset governed by German law if they do not have a structured presence in another participating state. This affects licence agreements, assignments, pledges, and the resolution of disputes between co-owners.

This seemingly academic issue becomes apparent in practice, for example, in the sale of a business or part of it, where the buyer expects certain standards of transferability and security of patent rights, or in financing, where the patent is used as collateral in favour of a bank or investor.

For a unitary patent governed by German law, for example, the establishment of a pledge, licences, or assignment agreements must comply with German legislation, which can be difficult for Czech businesses without specialised legal support.

The attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, therefore explain to clients in practice that the very choice of a unitary patent may create a need to set up corporate structures or contractual documentation so that they meet the requirements of a foreign legal system, or to choose a different applicant within the group where that makes economic sense.

Costs and savings: how much you really save on fees

The cost side of protecting innovation is often decisive for CFOs and business owners. Especially for portfolios with dozens or hundreds of patents, annual renewal fees and translation costs can reach millions of Czech crowns.

The unitary European patent was designed from the outset as a tool to reduce overall costs. This is achieved mainly by eliminating national validation procedures and consolidating renewal fees into a single payment made directly to the European Patent Office. In this context, however, it is important to distinguish pre-grant costs, which do not change with the introduction of the unitary patent, from post-grant costs, where the unitary patent brings fundamental differences.

Pre-grant costs: the European application remains the same

The filing itself and the proceedings before the European Patent Office are identical for a unitary patent and a traditional European patent; there is no “simplified” application for a unitary patent.

The applicant files a European patent application and pays the standard fees for filing, search, designation of states, and, where applicable, excess claims. If they wish to proceed, they also pay the fee for substantive examination and for grant and publication of the patent.

According to EPO data, the minimum total of filing and search fees is around EUR 1,655 (for electronic filing).

Total official fees up to grant for a typical patent average around EUR 6,800, excluding patent attorney fees. These amounts are the same for both the unitary and the traditional European patent; the difference comes only after grant.

Important information for Czech businesses is that the request for unitary effect itself is free of charge. The EPO does not charge any special fee for it, so the applicant pays nothing extra compared to a traditional European patent if they opt for unitary effect.

The decision between a unitary patent and a traditional European patent therefore does not affect the level of costs up to grant, but it has a major impact on costs and administration after grant.

Unitary patent renewal fees: exactly EUR 4,555 for the first ten years

A key argument for the unitary European patent is the renewal fee structure. The owner of a unitary patent pays only one renewal fee each year, directly to the EPO in euros, through a standardised system.

This is done without the need to use a representative and regardless of how many states are covered by the unitary patent.

The fee level was set at approximately the sum of renewal fees in the four most significant and most frequently chosen states among the participating countries (typically Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands).

The specific amount of renewal fees for a unitary patent increases over the life of the patent. In the second year after filing, the fee is EUR 35; in the third year, EUR 105; in the fourth year, EUR 145; and in the fifth year, EUR 315. In subsequent years, the amount increases further—for example, in the tenth year, EUR 1,175 is payable; in the eleventh year, EUR 1,460; and in the twentieth year, EUR 4,855.

The total of these fees for the first ten years, which corresponds to the average lifespan of a European patent, is less than EUR 5,000. Specifically, the total from the second to the tenth year amounts to exactly EUR 4,555.

This is the amount for which the owner of a unitary patent has protection secured in all currently participating states, i.e., in 18 EU countries, without any additional national fees.

For entrepreneurs, it is important that these fees are not only lower than the sum of individual national fees, but also significantly reduce the administrative burden. There is no need to track different rates, currencies, deadlines, or local rules on late payments in individual countries.

The EPO also allows payments by credit card, bank transfer, or via a deposit account. Any person can pay the fees, so companies can set up internal processes according to their needs.

This matters not only for direct costs, but also for internal administrative costs and for the risk that, due to an oversight in a particular country, a patent may unintentionally lapse.

Comparison with a classic European patent: when the savings arise

With a classic European patent, after the patent is granted the owner must carry out national validations in the countries where protection is sought. This typically means paying a fee to the national office, submitting a translation of either the entire patent file or at least the claims, and often using the services of a local patent attorney.

Subsequently, it is necessary to pay renewal fees every year in each of these countries separately. The fees differ both in amount and in the applicable rules. Companies commonly use specialised providers who monitor deadlines and payments, which further increases costs.

According to EPO analyses, the unitary patent is cheaper than a conventional European patent validated and maintained in at least four participating member states.

A frequently cited model group is Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands – four countries where European patents are traditionally validated most often.

The total costs of validation and maintaining a European patent in these four countries up to the twelfth year can reach approximately EUR 16,527 (including estimated translation and validation costs).

By contrast, the total cost of maintaining a unitary patent over the same period is estimated at around EUR 11,399, representing savings of roughly 31%.

The same percentage of savings applies if the patent is maintained for only ten years or, conversely, fifteen years. The difference is therefore not sensitive only to the duration, but primarily to the number of countries in which the European patent would otherwise be validated.

Estimates show that if a classic European patent were validated and maintained for the full twenty-year term in all 18 states currently covered by the unitary patent, the total renewal fees would amount to roughly EUR 122,608. Whereas for a unitary patent, the same payment over twenty years is only around EUR 35,555.

This means that full classic protection in these states is approximately 3.4 times more expensive than a unitary patent in terms of renewal fees. For a company with a larger patent portfolio and a genuine ambition to operate across Europe, the unitary patent is therefore often the only economically rational choice.

Conversely, if a company wanted to validate a European patent in only one or two countries, for example in Germany and France, the classic system may in some cases be cheaper or at least comparable, especially if the patent will not be maintained for long and translation costs are low.

In such situations, an individual calculation is required, reflecting not only official fees but also the costs of patent attorneys, internal administration, and the expected revenues from the patent in question.

Additional savings for SMEs: translations, licence-of-right and the SME Fund

The unitary patent system also includes special features intended to benefit small and medium-sized enterprises, individual inventors and research organisations, and to make it easier for them to enter the pan-European market.

One of these is compensation for translation costs. If a European patent application is filed in an official language of an EU Member State other than English, French or German (for example, Czech) and is subsequently translated into one of these languages, the owner may, when filing the request for unitary effect, apply for a lump-sum compensation of EUR 500 towards translation costs.

This compensation is available to individuals, SMEs, non-profit organisations, universities and public research institutions established in an EU Member State and must be expressly requested when filing the request for unitary effect.

Another tool is the so-called licence-of-right – a declaration by the owner of a unitary patent that they are prepared to allow anyone to use their invention on reasonable licensing terms.

If such a declaration is filed and the EPO publishes it in the register, the owner becomes entitled to a 15% reduction in the renewal fees that fall due after the receipt of this declaration.

This tool is particularly interesting for patents that are not among a company’s most important assets, but may be a source of licensing income in a broader ecosystem, for example in the area of standardised technologies or auxiliary technical solutions. At the same time, it can signal to the market that the owner is open to licensing negotiations, which may accelerate the commercialisation of the technology.

In addition, SMEs operating in the EU can use the SME Fund programme administered by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which offers significant reimbursements of costs for services related to intellectual property.

Under the current setup, Czech SMEs can, for example, obtain a reimbursement of 75% of the fees for filing and examination of a European patent application up to EUR 1,000, and a significant portion of the costs of legal services related to that application, typically in the range of several thousand euros. In addition, there are further vouchers for IP scans and for trade marks or industrial designs.

For a company that innovates systematically, the combination of the SME Fund, translation compensation and the unitary patent can significantly reduce the initial investment in protecting key technologies.

Table of typical issues and services – costs and fees

Potential issues	How ARROWS helps (office@arws.cz)
Underestimating the total costs of a European patent: the company bases its budget only on EPO fees and ignores validation and national renewal fees, which leads to an underestimated budget and subsequent limitation of protection to fewer markets than the business actually needs.	Portfolio cost analysis: the attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, will prepare a total cost model for different options (unitary patent, classic EP, national filings), including representatives’ fees and administration, and help management set a realistic IP budget.
Incorrectly chosen regime for SMEs: a small company fails to use available discounts (SME Fund, translation compensation, licence-of-right) and unnecessarily pays higher fees, limiting the scope of patent protection.	Setting a cost-saving strategy for SMEs: ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, will assess which discounts the client is entitled to, prepare applications for support, and recommend when a licence-of-right or the use of EUIPO vouchers is worthwhile.
Chaotic management of renewal fees: different deadlines and systems in individual states create a risk of missing a payment and unintended lapse of the patent in some countries, weakening the company’s negotiating position vis-à-vis competitors and investors.	Centralising portfolio management: the attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, will propose a transition to a unitary patent where it makes economic sense and will take over coordination of payments and communication with the EPO and national offices, including setting up internal processes.
Underestimating litigation costs: the company enters proceedings before the Unified Patent Court without a realistic estimate of court fees and representation costs, which jeopardises the budget or leads to being forced into an unfavourable settlement.	Procedural and budget planning for disputes: ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, will prepare an estimate of court fees and other costs before the UPC and national courts, propose a strategy (including opt-out), and help negotiate a settlement or licence agreement on terms matching the client’s financial capacity.
Uncertainty in the legal regime of the unitary patent (e.g., German law for a Czech applicant) leads to defective licence or pledge agreements that will not stand up in the event of a dispute or during due diligence in the sale of the company.	Legal structuring of ownership and licences: the attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, will analyse the applicable law for the unitary patent, prepare licence and pledge agreements in compliance with it, and ensure that the portfolio withstands investors’ or banks’ due diligence.

If you are also dealing with how to set your IP budget and where the biggest savings are, it makes sense to go through the specific numbers on your cases. The attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, can prepare a clear analysis and tailored recommendations—just contact us at office@arws.cz.

Key questions on costs and savings

Is there any EPO fee for requesting unitary effect? No, the request for unitary effect itself is free of charge. The EPO does not charge any special fee for it; you only pay the standard fees for the European application and then the renewal fees for the unitary patent. If you are unsure whether the advantages of the unitary patent will outweigh the disadvantages in your case, you can contact the attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, who will prepare a cost comparison for different scenarios.
From how many countries does a unitary patent typically become more cost-effective than a classic European patent? According to EPO analyses, a unitary patent is overall cheaper than a European patent validated and maintained in at least four participating states, because the renewal fees and transaction costs are set approximately at the level of “four states”. However, to assess a specific situation (for example, if you are considering only two or three states), it is advisable to carry out a more detailed calculation, which ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, can help you with.

How significantly can the SME Fund reduce initial patent costs? The SME Fund can reimburse Czech SMEs up to 75% of the filing and search fees for a European patent application up to EUR 1,000, and a significant part of the costs of legal services related to that application, typically in the range of several thousand euros. For a smaller company, this is a very noticeable reduction in the cost of entering the European patent system. The attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, can help you design the optimal combination of the SME Fund, the unitary patent and any national filings after analysing your innovation plan.

When a unitary European patent makes sense from the company’s strategic perspective

Although cost arguments favour the unitary patent once a company wants to protect an invention in at least four to five participating states, the decision itself cannot be based solely on a spreadsheet comparison of fees.

Business strategy, the likelihood of disputes, the risk of validity challenges, group structure, and the nature of the invention (for example, whether it is a standard-essential patent or a narrowly specialised solution) also come into play. The decision whether to choose a unitary patent, a classic European Patent or national filings is therefore a matter of strategy, not merely an administrative choice.

Typical situations when to choose a unitary patent

A unitary European patent makes the most sense for inventions with the potential for broad use across multiple EU states. These are situations where it is realistically expected that revenues or licence income will come from multiple markets simultaneously.

A typical example is technical innovation in mechanical engineering, automotive, energy, ICT, medical devices or industrial equipment, which is manufactured in one state but sold and used across Europe. For such products, it is common that manufacturing, assembly, distribution and use take place in different states and that potential infringers (competitors, OEM partners, subcontractors) also operate in several countries.

Another typical situation involves products distributed primarily online or as part of digital services—for example, software implemented in a device, cloud solutions or platforms—where the question of “where patent infringement occurs” may overlap across multiple jurisdictions.

In these cases, an advantage is the ability to enforce rights through a single set of proceedings before the Unified Patent Court with effect for multiple states, instead of running parallel disputes in three or four countries.

Centralisation increases predictability and may prove cheaper, even though UPC court fees are relatively high in themselves. This is because you avoid duplicating legal representation costs and the risk of conflicting decisions.

The unitary patent is also attractive for companies planning to license technology across a broader geographic scope. For a licensee, it is often easier to assess the value of a licence if they know the patent has unitary effect across a large part of the EU, rather than being fragmented into several national patents with different validity statuses and different remaining terms.

In transactional practice, moreover, a unitary patent functions as a single “package”—in due diligence it is assessed as one right, which can simplify negotiations with investors or buyers, provided the geographic scope matches the planned business.

For Czech companies with ambitions to scale a product into multiple EU Member States (e.g., progressive technology start-ups, manufacturers of industrial equipment, medical devices, or automotive components), the Unitary Patent therefore often represents a rational choice, especially for key inventions.

The attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, often recommend in such cases that clients combine a Unitary Patent for participating states with classic European or national applications for other important markets such as the United Kingdom, Spain, Poland, Switzerland, or the Czech Republic itself.

When it makes sense to stick with a classic EP or national patents instead

On the other hand, there are situations where a Unitary Patent may be unsuitable or less advantageous. One of these is when a business realistically needs protection only in two or three countries, for example in Germany and the Czech Republic, possibly in combination with one additional market such as Slovakia or Austria.

Given that the Unitary Patent protects only participating states and the Czech Republic is not yet among them, the company must still obtain protection in the Czech Republic by another route. The cost savings from a Unitary Patent may not outweigh the administrative burden of combining different regimes if the number of foreign markets is small.

Another category involves inventions where there is a higher risk of validity challenges—for example, in fields with very dense prior art, where it is difficult to demonstrate a sufficient degree of novelty and inventive step, or in the case of so-called standard-essential patents (SEPs), which are key to implementing a technological standard and are subject to intensive licensing negotiations and disputes.

In such cases, it may be too risky for some businesses to expose a single Unitary Patent to centralized revocation before the UPC, which would have effect in all participating states at once. Instead, the dispute would be conducted gradually in several key national jurisdictions.

For the most valuable patents in a portfolio—without which a company would lose a substantial part of its value—it is therefore sometimes safer to stick with a classic European patent and, during the transitional period, use an opt-out so that the patent is not subject to the UPC.

Special attention should also be paid to situations where a company plans complex contractual structures such as cross-licences, joint ventures, or combinations of patents from different jurisdictions.

From a licensing perspective, a Unitary Patent is simpler to a certain extent—it is possible to grant a licence limited to only some states, but the right itself is indivisible and transferable only as a whole. If, from a commercial perspective, it is essential to be able to split rights by individual countries among different partners or companies within a group, it may sometimes be more appropriate to work with a portfolio of national patents or classic European patents validated in different states.

Specifics for Czech companies and investors

For Czech companies, it is typical that they often combine domestic manufacturing with exports to several key EU Member States, with Germany, Austria, Slovakia, and Poland often being of above-average importance. In such cases, it is necessary to consider whether it makes sense to build a broad European portfolio or to focus on a smaller number of truly key markets.

If a business is planning more extensive expansion into Western Europe (e.g., Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium), the Unitary Patent is often very attractive because these countries are included in the system and protection in them tends to be expensive if patents are validated and maintained individually.

The impacts on transactions and financing are also noteworthy. In due diligence as part of an investor’s entry or the sale of a company, an investor typically assesses not only the number of patents, but also their geographic scope, term, risk of validity challenges, and the cost of maintaining them.

A Unitary Patent provides an investor with a relatively transparent asset—one right with a clear territorial scope and a centralized register where licence statements, pledges, or transfers can be identified. For an investor, this means simpler legal due diligence, but also a certain risk that a single dispute before the UPC may materially weaken or revoke this key right in all states at once.

The attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, in practice often combine IP strategy with transactional advice—for example, they may recommend that core technologies remain under a classic EP with an opt-out, and that supplementary technologies use a Unitary Patent in order to reduce renewal costs and increase licensing flexibility.

They also take into account that ARROWS advokátní kancelář is insured for professional liability up to CZK 400,000,000, which signals to investors that legal advice in this area is covered even in the event of very high damages.

How to approach the matter procedurally and why not to improvise

The decision on a unitary patent should not be a partial, impulsive step taken for a single specific application, but part of a broader IP strategy.

A sensible approach is to first carry out an IP audit – map existing patents and applications, identify key technologies, and assess their commercial importance and risks. It is then advisable to set an internal policy determining when to apply for a unitary patent, when to remain with a classic European patent (EP), and when to use purely national applications. This policy should be clear to R&D, legal, and finance teams.

In practice, exceptions will inevitably arise – for example, for a specific project with a major strategic partner, for inventions being prepared as SEPs, or for technologies related to regulated sectors such as healthcare or energy. Here, it is often necessary to combine knowledge of patent law with expertise in the relevant industry, as well as tax and regulatory advice.

The attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, have experience with IP strategies as well as M&A, regulation, and tax planning, so they can help set a comprehensive strategy that does not address patent protection in isolation, but as part of the company’s overall operations.

For many companies, it is also advantageous to have a long-term external legal partner who understands their technology, markets, and internal processes and can respond continuously to changes – whether it is amendments to regulations, changes to the UPC fee structure, or the entry of a new investor.

As ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, is involved in the ARROWS International network, Czech clients can also address cross-border matters (for example, patent registration and enforcement in other countries, licence agreements, or disputes) in coordination with vetted partner firms.

Final summary

The unitary European patent represents a significant opportunity for companies that develop and commercialise innovations in Europe to simplify and reduce the cost of protecting their technologies. With a single annual renewal fee and without national validations, it can cover 18 EU Member States. Renewal fees for the first ten years amount to exactly EUR 4,555.

Compared to a classic European patent validated in multiple countries, the savings are often in the tens of percent, and with full European protection the classic route can be more than three times as expensive.

For Czech entrepreneurs, it is important that the unitary patent does not yet cover the Czech Republic, but it can be effectively combined with classic European or national patents to ensure full protection in key markets.

At the same time, however, the unitary patent is not a universal solution for every situation. It brings a centralised risk – a single dispute before the Unified Patent Court can confirm or revoke the patent in all participating states at once. After the increase in 2024, UPC court fees are a significant cost item, especially in high-value disputes.

Larger companies and technology leaders may find it a tool for effective enforcement of rights across Europe. Smaller businesses, in turn, may see it as a way to spread the costs of broader geographic protection. However, it is always necessary to consider the business model, market geography, risk profile, and group structure; the legal reality is complex and often includes procedural and liability details that are not obvious at first glance.

If you do not want to risk an inappropriately chosen patent strategy leading to unnecessary costs, a weakened negotiating position, complications in litigation, or a blocked transaction, it is sensible to involve experts in the decision-making.

The attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, have long focused on unitary patent protection, European patents, and related disputes, are familiar with the current legal landscape, and can connect patent strategy with a commercial, tax, and transactional perspective. If you are considering whether a unitary European patent is worthwhile for your company and how much you can realistically save, or you want to set a long-term IP strategy, you can confidently contact ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, at office@arws.cz.

Questions about the unitary European patent

What is the main difference between the Unitary European Patent and a traditional European patent?
A traditional European patent “breaks up” after grant into a bundle of national patents that must be validated and maintained in each individual country, whereas the Unitary European Patent remains a single, indivisible right with uniform renewal fees and a uniform regime across all participating states. If you are unsure which regime is more suitable for your specific projects, the attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, can prepare a comparison and recommendation—just contact us at office@arws.cz.
How much will we roughly save on fees if we switch to the Unitary Patent?
The amount of savings depends on the number of countries in which you would otherwise validate and maintain the patent. For a patent that would otherwise be validated in Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands, total costs up to the twelfth year may drop from approximately EUR 16,500 to EUR 11,400—i.e., by about one third—and with full protection in all 18 states, the traditional system can be up to 3.4 times more expensive than the Unitary Patent. The attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, can prepare an exact calculation for your portfolio based on your data if you send it to office@arws.cz.
Can we have both a Unitary Patent and a traditional European patent at the same time?
Yes, it is common for an applicant to request unitary effect for the participating states and at the same time validate the same European patent as a traditional EP in non-participating states (for example, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Spain or the Czech Republic). This creates a combined portfolio that needs to be well aligned in terms of licensing, transactions and litigation strategy; ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, can assist you with this if you contact us at office@arws.cz.
What are the main advantages and risks of litigation before the Unified Patent Court?
The main advantage is the ability to obtain, in a single set of proceedings, a decision effective for all states covered by the Unitary Patent, which significantly simplifies enforcement and reduces the risk of conflicting decisions by national courts. The risk, on the other hand, is centralized revocation of the patent and relatively high court fees, especially after the increase in 2024: whether the UPC is worthwhile for you depends on the strategic value of the patent and the risk of dispute—an issue the attorneys at ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, can go through with you in detail if you contact them at office@arws.cz.
What impact does the Unitary Patent have on licensing and the sale of a company?
The Unitary Patent can simplify licensing because the partner obtains a right with unitary effect across a large part of the EU, and it also facilitates due diligence in the sale of a company or the entry of an investor because it is a single, clear right. At the same time, however, you must take into account that the legal regime governing the patent (e.g., German law for a Czech applicant) affects licensing and security documentation; ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, can help you set up these agreements so that they stand up in transactional practice if you contact us at office@arws.cz.
As a Czech company, how should we start if we are considering the Unitary Patent for the first time?
A practical first step is an IP audit—mapping your existing and planned inventions, markets and competitors—and then setting rules for when to use the Unitary Patent and when to stick with a traditional EP or national filings. ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, can fully handle this process for you, including links to support programmes (SME Fund, tax aspects) and the preparation of internal procedures, if you email us at office@arws.cz.

Notice: The information contained in this article is of a general informational nature only and is intended for basic orientation in the matter based on the legal state as of 2026. Although we take the utmost care to ensure accuracy, legal regulations and their interpretation evolve over time. We are ARROWS advokátní kancelář, an entity registered with the Czech Bar Association (our supervisory authority), and for maximum client protection we are insured for professional liability with a limit of CZK 400,000,000. To verify the current wording of regulations and their application to your specific situation, it is necessary to contact ARROWS advokátní kancelář directly (office@arws.cz). We accept no liability for any damages arising from the independent use of the information in this article without prior individual legal consultation.

Read also: