In case UPC_CFI_628/2025, the UPC has upheld a decision of the EPO to reject a request for a unitary patent. The request was rejected by the EPO because details (the name and address) for one of the proprietors were inaccurate, and this was not timely corrected in response to a deficiency notice issued by the EPO.
Requirements for requesting a unitary patent
To obtain a unitary patent, a request for unitary effect must be filed at the EPO within one month of publication of grant of the European patent (R. 6(1) of the Rules relating to Unitary Patent Protection, RUPP). The request must include, inter alia, details of the proprietor(s) of the European patent (R. 6(2)(a) RUPP).
If a deficient request (i.e. a request in which required information is absent and/or information provided is erroneous) is filed before the one-month deadline, the EPO will issue a deficiency notice. This deficiency notice provides the proprietor with a period of one month in which to remedy the deficiency. Failure to do so within the period results in rejection of the request (R. 7(3) RUPP). The period set by the deficiency notice is non-extendable, and re-establishment of rights (by showing that the time limit was not observed despite all due care having been taken) is not available (R. 22(6) RUPP)
The facts
In the present case (UPC_CFI_628/2025), a patent application was originally filed in the name of three applicants, the third of which was "Université de Rennes-I" at the address "2 Rue de Thabor...".
While the application was being prosecuted, the legal entity "Université de Rennes-I" was replaced by a new legal entity, "Université de Rennes" at "Campus de Beaulieu – 263 avenue Général Leclerc...". The original legal entity was dissolved, and properties belonging to the original legal entity (including the patent application) were transferred to the new legal entity. The transfer of the patent application was recorded at the EPO.
In the request for unitary effect, the details of "Université de Rennes-I" (i.e. the original legal entity) were provided. Noting the discrepancy between the request and the European patent register, the EPO issued a deficiency notice.
A reply to the deficiency notice was filed, but only four days after the deadline for doing so. Consequently, the EPO rejected the request for unitary effect. The proprietors of the patent appealed this decision, and the appeal was heard by the Central Division (Milan Section) as first instance court of the UPC.
Relevance of erroneous proprietor details
In their appeal, the proprietors argued that, despite the discrepancy between the proprietor details in the request for unitary effect and the true proprietor details, there was no ambiguity in the identity of the three true proprietors. In support of this, the proprietors pointed to the fact that the details of two out of the three proprietors were correct, and contended that the discrepancy in the details of the third proprietor was a marginal error because the address provided in the request was sufficient for the third proprietor to be identified. In relation to the latter point, the proprietors submitted that the university still had premises at Rue de Thabor (the address of the original legal entity), even though the head office (and legal address) of the university was now elsewhere.
Considering these points, the court noted in their order that, in a request where the proprietor is a legal entity, the request must include the entity's official designation (full legal name) and address, with the address being "indicated in accordance with the usual requirements for rapid postal delivery" (R. 6(2)(a) RUPP with R. 41(2)(c) EPC). Further, the court held that the address provided for the proprietor must be the legal address. The court also noted that these requirements are rigorous and precise in order to guarantee the rights of third parties and legal certainty.
Applying this to the facts of the present case, the court held that the discrepancies between the proprietor details provided in the request and the true proprietor details were significant, rendering the request materially inaccurate. Thus, the court held that the EPO were correct to issue the deficiency notice.
Relevance of the missed deadline for remedying deficiencies
In the appeal, the proprietors also raised, as a defence, the fact that the deadline for replying to the EPO's deficiency notice was exceeded by only a few days. Unsurprisingly, this was not found to be convincing. The court noted that the one-month period for remedying deficiencies is perfectly reasonable, and that accepting documents after the deadline would call into question the legal certainty of the system.
As mentioned above, re-establishment of rights is not available when the deadline for responding to a deficiency notice relating to a request for unitary effect is missed.
Thus, the appeal was dismissed, and the request for unitary effect remains rejected.
Possible Safety Net Provisions
In this case, the patent was granted on 18 December 2024, the request for unitary effect was rejected by the EPO on 17 June 2025, and the order of the UPC was issued on 6 August 2025. Thus, the order of the UPC was issued nearly eight months after the patent was granted, long after the typical three-month deadline for performing the various formal acts required to validate the patent nationally in EPC-contracting states.
However, most UPCA-contracting states provide a safety net whereby, after a request for a unitary patent has been rejected, the proprietor(s) have a period in which the European patent can be validated nationally – even if the normal deadline for national validation has passed.
The exact nature of the safety net provisions differs between the UPCA-contracting states. In the statutes of some states (e.g. Finland, Netherlands and Austria, as well as Germany and Belgium in respect of renewal fees), it is explicit that the safety net period begins upon the final decision of the UPC in the case that a rejection of the request for unitary effect by the EPO has been appealed. Thus, for these states, national validation should remain an option after the final rejection of the request by the UPC (provided the request is rejected for a deficiency, rather than a failure to meet the one-month deadline for filing the request). In other statutes, this situation seems to be less clear.
Concluding remarks
This decision highlights the necessity of being completely accurate in the details provided in a request for unitary protection: even discrepancies which may be considered by some to be "minor" could be enough for the request to be rejected. While the Rules relating to Unitary Patent Protection provide for a period in which deficient requests can be corrected, the period is relatively short, and no remedies are available if the deficiencies are not corrected within the period.
J A Kemp LLP acts for clients in the USA, Europe and globally, advising on UK and European patent practice and representing them before the European Patent Office, UKIPO and Unified Patent Court. We have in-depth expertise in a wide range of technologies, including Biotech and Life Sciences, Pharmaceuticals, Software and IT, Chemistry, Electronics and Engineering and many others. See our website to find out more.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
