Good news! You have just heard that the EPO has decided to grant your healthcare patent application. You must now decide whether to allow the granted patent to be granted as a Unitary Patent in the member states participating in the Unitary Patent Court (UPC) or as a bundle of national patents and potentially file opt-outs to protect the national patents from central revocation in the UPC. You are aware of the various pros and cons of the UPC (see our opt-out brochure for further information), but what is everyone else doing? The pharmaceutical industry has been expected to adopt a cautious approach towards the UPC due to the value of individual patents and the potentially significant economic impact of a patent being revoked in multiple jurisdictions in a single court action. Does this mean that everyone simply opts their healthcare patents out of the UPC?
The UPC entered into force on 1 June 2023, but it was possible to delay the grant of a European Patent from the beginning of the year until Unitary Patents might be granted. In practice this means that 2024 was the first full year when patent proprietors had the choice of obtaining Unitary Patents, even though, at least theoretically, any European Patent application found in order for grant since 1 January 2023 could have been converted into a Unitary Patent if a patent proprietor chose to do so.
It is perhaps unsurprising then that the percentage of European patents granted in 2024 in healthcare fields which ended up being maintained as Unitary Patents increased. This was true across all healthcare fields sampled. Use of the Unitary Patent was particularly high in the case of medical devices where approximately 30% of all patents granted in Europe in 2024 were maintained as Unitary Patents up from around 20% in 2023. As the graph below (FIG.1) illustrates significant proportions of granted European Patents end up as Unitary Patents subject to the jurisdiction of the UPC across all healthcare fields. Any suggestion that healthcare companies are opting all their patents out from the jurisdiction of the UPC is clearly wrong.

Figure 1: Percentage UPs by Technical Field
But what are specific applicants doing? To answer this question, we have sampled a range of applicants in each of the above technical areas. The sample we selected included most of the largest filers in the healthcare sector in addition to several applicants from related sectors such as agrochemicals and fine chemicals.
Organic Chemistry
FIG. 2 below shows the results of our survey for major patentees for patent applications relating to organic chemistry. In the graph below we show the numbers of European Patents (EPs) each applicant has chosen to maintain as national patents and the numbers of patents where the applicant has opted to have the patents maintained as Unitary Patents (UPs). The figure then further breaks these numbers down across patents granted in 2023 and 2024 to see if any change in behaviour of an individual applicant can be identified.

Figure 2: Granted EPs and UPs – Organic Chemistry
As can be seen in the graph above, a number of the significant filers in organic chemistry have engaged very little with the Unitary Patent system having either zero or low single digit numbers of Unitary Patents granted in 2023/24. For example, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, LG Group, Merck Sharp & Dohme (Merck & Co Inc.), Novartis, and Samsung all had no Unitary Patents granted in 2023, and at most had a single Unitary Patent granted in 2024. This group includes Bristol-Myers Squibb, LG Group, and Merck Sharp & Dohme who were among the largest filers for patents in this area of technology.
Where an applicant has been very selective about engagement with the Unitary Patent system, it may be the case that a or particular patents relate to technology for which a Unitary Patent is particularly suitable. Potentially, this may explain the single Merck Patent GmbH (Merck KGaA) Unitary Patent granted in 2024. That patent concerned a chemical process which involved multiple individual process steps which potentially could be conducted in different European countries for which protection via a Unitary Patent was particularly suitable.
Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novartis all had no Unitary Patents granted in the field of organic chemistry in 2023/24, and each had a single organic chemistry Unitary Patent granted in 2024. Potentially, these might also have been chosen as “test cases” for using the Unitary Patent system or for specific reasons relating to the individual inventions that the patents cover.
Other applicants have used the Unitary Patent system more widely, for example BASF, Gilead, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Syngenta, and Takeda.
Collectively, the figures indicate that different companies are taking very different approaches to the UPC and the Unitary Patent System. There is no uniformity of approach.
By way of example, Roche and Novartis are both multinational Swiss pharmaceutical corporations ranking in the top five global pharmaceutical companies by revenue. In the field of organic chemistry, Novartis converted none of their European Patents into Unitary Patents in 2023 and obtained only a single Unitary Patent in 2024. This compares with 40 and 43 organic chemistry patents in 2023 and 2024 respectively, where Novartis maintained their patents as a bundle of national rights. In contrast, Roche had 36 organic chemistry Unitary Patents granted in 2023 (compared to 44 European Patents maintained as a bundle of national rights), and this increased to 38 Unitary Patents granted in 2024 (compared to 27 European Patents maintained as a bundle of national rights). Hence, in contrast to Novartis who has yet to really engage with the Unitary Patent system, the majority of Roche’s organic chemistry applications are now being maintained as Unitary Patents.
The upward trend in the proportion of patents maintained as Unitary Patents which is apparent from Roche can also be seen in the figures for other applicants. Thus, for example, Syngenta also had a greater proportion of maintained as Unitary Patents in 2024 compared with 2023 so that in 2024 a majority of Syngenta’s patents in the field of organic chemistry were maintained as Unitary Patents rather than a bundle of national rights (16 Unitary Patents compared with 12 patents maintained as national rights).
Tentatively, this may suggest that some applicants are overcoming their initial caution about the use of the Unitary Patent system. However, as we only have two year’s data, and the data from 2023 is necessarily impacted by the introduction of the Unitary Patent half-way through that year (albeit with the option of selectively delaying patent grant where a proprietor really wished to obtain a Unitary Patent), it is probably too early to tell.
Organic Pharmaceuticals
Similar mixed signals are also shown in the numbers of patents converted into Unitary Patents by major filers in the field of organic pharmaceuticals shown below (FIG. 3)

Figure 3: Granted EPs and UPs – Organic Pharmaceuticals
AbbVie, Bayer, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Gilead, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda all show relatively widespread uptake of Unitary Patents in the field of organic pharmaceuticals.
Chiesi Farmaceutici has chosen to convert the majority of their granted patents into Unitary Patents. This was the case both 2023 and 2024 when 4 and then 5 of Chiesi Farmaceutici patents were converted into Unitary Patents compared to 2 and then 5 patents which were maintained as national rights.
Although the sample size is small, AbbVie had no organic pharmaceutical Unitary Patents granted in 2023 (and a single patent maintained as a bundle of national rights), but 3 Unitary Patents granted in 2024 with no rights not being maintained as Unitary Patents.
Some applicants – Amgen, Bayer, Chiesi Farmaceutici, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Sanofi, and Takeda – increased their use of the Unitary Patent system in 2024, However, others – AstraZeneca, Merck Patent GmbH, Pfizer, and Vertex – obtained Unitary Patents in 2023 but obtained no Unitary Patents in 2024. Whereas other major players in the field – Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Regeneron – have entirely avoided the Unitary Patent system for organic pharmaceutical inventions and have chosen instead to maintain all their European patents as bundles of national rights.
Biologics
FIG. 4 shows a similar analysis, this time in the field of Biologics.

Figure 4: Granted EPs and UPs – Biologics
Apart from Biogen, Johnson & Johnson, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Roche, applicants generally seem to be more reluctant to use the Unitary Patent system for biologics. Of the applicants sampled, only Novo Nordisk obtained Unitary Patents for a majority of their granted patent applications (7 and 6 Unitary Patents in 2023/24, respectively compared to 2 and then 1 patent which was maintained as a bundle of national rights).
The greatest number of biologics Unitary Patents in our sample were granted to Roche. However, that was due to the higher number of patents that Roche obtained compared to the companies in the survey and still represented a minority of Roche’s biologics patents overall (10 and then 15 Unitary Patents in 2023 and 2024 compared with 16 and then 18 patents maintained as national rights in 2023 and 2024 respectively).
Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck Sharp & Dohme converted none of their European Patents into Unitary Patents in 2023/24, despite these applicants being among the largest filers in this field. Whereas Novartis chose to maintain only a single European patent as a Unitary Patent in 2024, opting for national rights for 19 and then 22 biologics patents in 2023 and 2024 respectively.
Medical Devices
Medical device applicants appear to be most divided in their adoption of the UPC (FIG. 5).

Figure 5: Granted EPs and UPs – Medical Devices
A significant number of applicants sampled have chosen to not to obtain Unitary Patents – see Intuitive Surgical, Novartis, ResMed, Smith and Nephew, Solventum (3M Health Care), and Stryker. This is particularly significant because some of the largest filers in the field of medical devices have chosen to take this approach.
Other applicants such as Abbott Laboratories, Braun, Dexcom, Fujifilm, GE Healthcare, and Medtronic, had either a single or low single digit number of Unitary Patents granted in 2023/2024, compared with significantly higher number of patents which were maintained as national rights. Of these applicants, all but Abbott Laboratories and Dexcom deferred their adoption of the Unitary Patent system for medical devices until 2024.
On the other hand, Becton, Dickinson and Company is notable for obtaining 38 medical device Unitary Patents in 2023 (compared to 14 patents maintained as national rights). Then in 2024, Becton Dickinson’s number of Unitary Patents was an order of magnitude greater than the number maintained as a bundle of national rights – 74 Unitary Patents compared to 7 maintained as national rights.
All of the medical device patents granted in Europe to Align were maintained as Unitary Patents in both 2023 and 2024. In fact, out of 49 patents granted to Align in Europe in 2023 (in all areas of technology), only a single patent (relating to a computer program) was not maintained as a Unitary Patent.
Other large filers including Edwards Lifesciences and Philips are choosing to obtain a mix of Unitary Patents and bundles of national rights. Although, both companies are opting for the Unitary Patent route for only a minority of their patents, in both cases the numbers of Unitary Patents granted doubled in 2023 compared with 2024. Potentially, this suggests that these companies chose not to delay grant of patents prior to 1 June 2023 just for the opportunity to obtain Unitary Patents which would cause the 2023 numbers to represent grants for only around half a year and that Edwards Lifesciences and Philips have been converting a consistent proportion of their Medical Devices patents into Unitary Patents since then.
Roche, Sanofi, and Siemens had a large proportion of their medical device patents granted as Unitary Patents in both 2023 and 2024 with between 45% and 65% of medical device patents for these three companies being maintained as Unitary Patents in 2024.
Sanofi and Roche provide an interesting example of how take up of the Unitary Patent is impacted by technical field. Looking at the figures for 2024, Sanofi converted a greater proportion of their medical device patents to Unitary Patents (46%) than was the case for organic chemistry patents (37%) or biologics (5%). Similarly, Roche’s figures vary significantly across different fields and in many cases are quite different from those for Sanofi with Roche obtaining Unitary Patents for 64% of their medical device patents, 37% of their organic chemistry patents, 58% of their organic pharmaceutical patents and 45% of their biologics patents.
Conclusions
As shown above, it is clear that at present different companies are adopting very different approaches to the use of the Unitary Patent system and that the approaches are nuanced depending upon the area of technology a patent involves. Widespread adoption of the Unitary Patent has not been limited to European-domiciled companies, with several US applicants now maintaining a significant proportion of patents in Europe as Unitary Patents.
It is clearly not the case that large companies choose to maintain all their patents as national rights, opting the patents out from the jurisdiction of the UPC to protect such rights from central revocation.
How those approaches develop further, only time will tell.
Contact Us
Nicholas Fox – Partner | [email protected]
Maxwell Haughey – Associate | [email protected]