- Legal Structure and Institutions
The European Patent System and the U.S. Patent System: A Comparative Review
Europe
In Europe, the single body that grants a “European patent” is the European Patent Office (EPO), and the backbone of the system is the European Patent Convention (EPC). The EPO acts as a centralized granting authority; once a European patent is granted, it becomes a bundle of national rights that take effect separately in the EPC member states through validation.
Since 1 June 2023, there has also been the option of the Unitary Patent. If the applicant requests “unitary effect” for a European patent granted by the EPO, the patent takes effect as a single, unitary right across participating EU member states, with one renewal fee and one uniform scope of protection. The associated Unified Patent Court (UPC) provides centralized jurisdiction for infringement and revocation actions within those participating states.
United States
In the U.S., patents are granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) under 35 U.S.C. (the Patent Act). The system is strictly national and federal: a granted U.S. patent is a single federal right enforceable across the entire United States.
Administrative challenges to granted patents are handled before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), primarily through Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings.
Practical takeaway: In Europe, the grant procedure is centralized but the effect is multi-jurisdictional; in the U.S., both grant and effect are unitary and federal.
- Filing Strategy and Procedure
Europe
A single filing with the EPO opens a path to protection across EPC states. However, once a classical European patent is granted, it must be validated country-by-country to take effect in each chosen member state.
If the Unitary Patent route is selected, the validation burden largely disappears for participating countries; the patentee obtains a single registration with a single renewal system across those states.
United States
Applicants file nationally with the USPTO. A distinctive feature of U.S. practice is the widespread use of provisional applications: a provisional filing secures an early priority date and allows the applicant 12 months to convert it into a non-provisional application, offering cost and timing flexibility. (Europe does not have an equivalent “provisional” filing; priority is typically established through an earlier national or EPO filing.)
Practical takeaway: The U.S. system is more flexible for start-ups seeking quick priority via provisional filings, while Europe offers broad territorial reach through a single EPO route.
- Patentability and Examination Logic
Common Ground
Both systems require the classical triad:
novelty + inventive step / non-obviousness + industrial applicability / utility.
Europe (EPO)
At the EPO, inventive step is assessed using the highly structured problem–solution approach. The technical problem must be clearly defined, and the claims must demonstrate a technical contribution that solves that problem.
Claim drafting often follows a two-part form, and examination strongly emphasizes technical effect.
United States (USPTO)
In the U.S., inventive step is analyzed as non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, focusing on combinations of prior art and the reasoning or motivation to combine them.
Claim drafting is more flexible in form, and prosecution strategy is closely linked to how claims will later be defended in litigation.
Practical takeaway: In Europe, a strong technical problem-solution narrative is decisive; in the U.S., the boundaries and litigation-robustness of the claims are often more central.
- Grace Period (Pre-Filing Disclosure) and First-to-File
Europe
Under the EPC, the rule is essentially absolute novelty: public disclosure before filing destroys novelty, with only very narrow exceptions. Grace period protection is therefore extremely limited.
United States
Although the U.S. follows a first-inventor-to-file system after the America Invents Act (AIA), it still provides a 12-month grace period for disclosures made by the inventor (or derived from the inventor), which offers an important practical buffer.
Practical takeaway: For Europe-targeted protection, “file first, disclose later” is far stricter and less forgiving.
- Subject-Matter Eligibility in Software / AI / Biotechnology
Europe
The EPC excludes solutions presented “as such” as computer programs or business methods. However, if the invention shows technical character and a technical effect, it may be patentable. Simply stating that “AI is involved” is not enough; there must be a technical solution to a technical problem.
United States
Subject-matter eligibility is governed by 35 U.S.C. §101 and interpreted through the Alice/Mayo jurisprudence. The USPTO’s 2024 AI-focused guidance strengthens the requirement that AI inventions demonstrate a practical application and a concrete technical contribution, so they are not treated as abstract ideas.
Practical takeaway: Both systems resist claims directed only to algorithms or abstract outcomes; Europe frames the test around technical effect, while the U.S. uses the Alice step-two language of inventive concept / practical application to reach a similar endpoint.
- Opposition / Revocation Mechanisms
Europe
After grant, a European patent may be centrally opposed at the EPO within 9 months. A successful opposition can revoke or limit the patent in one step across all EPC states where it has effect.
With the UPC system, Unitary Patents and UPC-opted-in European patents can also be subject to centralized infringement and revocation proceedings before the UPC.
United States
Post-grant administrative invalidation is handled through IPR and PGR proceedings at the PTAB. IPR is mainly based on novelty and non-obviousness grounds, while PGR allows broader challenges and follows different timing rules.
In 2025, PTAB practice became more procedurally stringent, especially regarding Real-Party-in-Interest disclosures and limits on certain prior-art categories, reshaping tactical post-grant strategies.
Practical takeaway: EPO opposition is a single, Europe-wide “one-shot” mechanism; PTAB reviews in the U.S. operate as a heavily used, litigation-style second front.
- Enforcement and Litigation System
Europe
Under the classical European patent model, infringement actions are litigated before national courts (e.g., Germany, the Netherlands, France).
The UPC now allows, within participating countries, centralized infringement and validity decisions in a single forum, offering both an opportunity (one decision with broad reach) and a risk (one adverse decision with broad loss).
United States
Patent infringement suits are heard in federal district courts, where damages, preliminary injunctions, and broad discovery are powerful tools.
For certain products, patentees may also seek import bans through the International Trade Commission (ITC) via exclusion orders, which can be highly effective.
Practical takeaway: U.S. enforcement often centers on financial pressure (high damages + discovery), while European strategy focuses on forum selection and, increasingly, UPC options.
- Cost, Language, and Timing
Europe
EPO examination is known for high quality, but in the classical model translation and validation costs can be substantial. The Unitary Patent reduces these burdens in participating states.
United States
Because it is a single-country system, there is no validation phase. However, extended prosecution timelines and a strong litigation ecosystem can increase overall cost.
- Strategic Implications for Companies
- For start-ups seeking rapid priority: U.S. provisional + PCT + EPO/Unitary is often the optimal route.
- For early European market entry: applicants must craft a persuasive problem–solution and technical effect narrative for the EPO.
- For U.S. targeting: §101 eligibility risk (especially in software/AI) must be managed from the outset through tight claim-specification alignment.
- For competitor clearance: Europe’s opposition window and U.S. PTAB procedures should each be treated as strategic weapons.
- Key Developments (2023–2025) — Brief Notes
- Unitary Patent + UPC has opened a new era in Europe, lowering cost for wide coverage while introducing significant centralized-risk dynamics.
- PTAB practice in the U.S. is becoming more procedurally strict through 2025 guidance, requiring updated post-grant attack/defense planning.
- AI/software patents in both systems are increasingly tied to showing technical contribution and practical application.
Overall Summary
- The European system offers centralized examination, multi-national effect, and (now) Unitary Patent/UPC tools that enable “one-move” management of broad geography.
- The U.S. system provides a single nationwide right, flexibility via provisional filings, and a powerful enforcement/PTAB ecosystem emphasizing speed and remedies.
Yanıt yok