Brexit and IP: Business as usual during the transition period

No items found.
January 31, 2020
#
Building a Resilient Quantum Patent Portfolio: Winning the Race to File First

The UK leaves the EU on 31 January 2020 – but until at least the end of 2020 it will be business as usual for intellectual property rights.

The Withdrawal Agreement between the EU and the UK was concluded on 24 January 2020 and was approved by the European Parliament on 29 January 2020. In consequence, the UK ceases to be a member of the European Union as from midnight Central European Time on 31 January 2020.

However, the Withdrawal Agreement provides for a transition period until 31 December 2020, during which the UK remains a full participant in the EU intellectual property regime, including the EU Trademark and Community Registered Design systems. This means that EU Trademarks and Community Registered Designs will continue to have effect in the UK until at least the end of 2020. It will be “business as usual” until then.

The transition period can be extended by up to two years, but any such extension must be agreed before 1 July 2020. While the UK Government has indicated that it will not seek an extension, this position may change in the coming months. In any case, by July 2020 it will be clear one way or another when the transition period will end.

Trademarks and Designs
Once the transition period ends, EU Trademarks and Community Registered Designs will no longer have effect in the UK. At that date the UK will automatically provide a “comparable” UK registration whose subject matter and effective date will be identical to the registered EU right. This comparable registration will then be subject to the payment of renewal fees, on the same schedule as, but independently of, the remaining EU right. This will also apply if EU is designated in an International Trademark or Design registration under the Madrid Protocol or The Hague systems (note that a UK national right is provided, not a UK designation in the international registration). If EIP is responsible for cases affected by this provision, we will contact you separately about this.

If the EU right is not yet registered, or, in the case of a Community Registered Design, registered with deferment of publication, then no rights in the UK will be given automatically – instead, the applicant will have the option to file a UK application for the same subject matter, maintaining the same effective filing date, within nine months from the end of the transition period. Again, if EIP is responsible for cases affected by this provision, we will contact you separately about this.

EIP will continue to handle both EU and UK trademark and design cases, and we already have mechanisms in place to deal with the consequences of the UK no longer being part of the EU intellectual property regime.

Patents
Brexit has no effect on patents. The UK has no plan to leave the European Patent Convention, which is not an EU organisation, and EIP will represent our clients in filing both UK national applications and applications at the European Patent Office in exactly the same manner whether the UK is within or outside the EU.

If you have any questions about the issues raised in this update, please contact any member of the EIP Brexit Committee listed below, or your usual contact at EIP, by email or by calling +44 (0)20 7440 9510.

Darren Smyth

Claire Lehr

Paula Flutter

Andrew Sharples

Recent Case Reports

UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
Litigation insurance as security for costs
30 March 2026
In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.
National law applies to claims for loss of profit if the events occurred before the UPC came into force
30 March 2026
In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.