For many companies, patents are a key part of protecting technology, product development and competitive advantage. This is why the reform of the Finnish Patent Act is not merely a legal detail. It may affect how companies plan patenting, manage costs and build international protection.
The Government has submitted a proposal to Parliament to modernise the Finnish Patent Act. The aim of the reform is to make the regulation clearer, more up to date and better aligned with the European framework. The new act is intended to replace the current Patent Act, which dates back to 1967.
According to the proposal, the new act would retain the key principles of current patent legislation: the content and limitations of the exclusive right conferred by a patent, the requirements for patentability, application and procedural rules, grant and opposition procedures, and the legal consequences related to infringement and invalidation.
Patents are still seen as an important part of innovation policy because they encourage the creation and use of inventions and support companies’ growth and international competitiveness.
From a company’s perspective, this is an important message: the core of the patent system will not change, but its practical procedures will be updated. The reform may make processes clearer and more predictable, but successful patenting will still require careful strategic planning.
A patent is not only a technical or legal document. At its best, it protects a company’s essential know-how, strengthens its market position and supports growth, financing, partnerships and internationalisation.
The new regulation is intended to enter into force on 1 January 2027. The reform aims to harmonise Finnish patent legislation with the European Patent Convention, or EPC. The EPC is the foundation of the European patent system and enables companies to seek patent protection in several countries through a single application.
The structure and wording of the legislative text are proposed to be simplified so that they better reflect current practices and the terminology used in general legislation. The aim is to increase predictability and reduce uncertainties caused by interpretation, both for applicants and authorities.
For companies, harmonisation may mean better predictability, especially when protection is sought in several markets. When national regulation is more closely aligned with European practice, it becomes easier to plan the application strategy as a whole.
The proposal would also remove outdated procedures. The possibility to apply for exemption from the publication fee and to obtain a deferral of annual fee payments would be abolished, as would the rarely used possibility of dividing an application by separating subject-matter that has been added to the application during prosecution. These changes would clarify current practices.
The patenting process would also be simplified by clarifying the Finnish Patent and Registration Office’s processing practices. The prohibition on division and extension would be linked to the date on which the patent is granted, bringing the national procedure closer to the EPC rules. This harmonisation would remove one intermediate step from the application process, thereby speeding up processing and reducing costs.
At the same time, it is important to remember that a lighter process does not reduce the importance of a high-quality application. The content of the patent application will still determine how strong and useful the protection obtained by the company will be. The technical core of the invention, the scope of the patent claims and the description of the application must be drafted in a way that supports the company’s business also at later stages.
The language requirements are proposed to be eased so that the claims of a national patent application drafted in Finnish or Swedish would no longer need to be translated into the other national language. For applications filed in English, translations could in the future be submitted later, and SPC applications could also be filed in English.
An SPC, or supplementary protection certificate, is a form of protection available for medicinal products and plant protection products. Under certain conditions, it can extend the exclusive right based on a patent. Expanding the use of English may therefore make administrative work easier, especially for internationally operating companies and groups.
However, national opposition proceedings would remain in Finnish or Swedish. This is worth noting particularly when a company is planning the management of its patent portfolio and possible defence situations in Finland.
The obligation to appoint a representative would be eased so that appointing a representative would in future be mandatory only if the applicant or proprietor is domiciled outside the European Economic Area. In such cases, the representative would need to have an address within the EEA.
This change would facilitate operations especially within the EU and EEA and in international application processes.
The change may reduce the administrative burden, but it does not remove the importance of expert support. The role of a patent attorney is not merely formal representation. A good patent attorney helps identify what should be protected, how the invention should be described and how the ppatent application should be aligned with the company’s broader business and IPR strategy.
The reform does not only concern the application phase. It may also be relevant in situations where the validity or scope of a patent is challenged.
The proposal suggests that a patent proprietor could request the partial invalidation of a patent from a court in connection with the handling of an invalidity action, if the grounds for invalidity concern only part of the patent. At the same time, the current patent limitation procedure before a court would be discontinued.
From a company’s perspective, this is likely to mean faster court proceedings in patent dispute matters.
The legislative proposal also includes a new provision aimed at making the handling of patent appeal matters more efficient. The provision would restrict the presentation of new patent claims to the court during appeal proceedings.
This is an important reminder for applicants. If making amendments at the appeal stage becomes more difficult, the importance of the application and opposition phases will increase. This requires strong procedural expertise from the patent attorney, as well as close cooperation with the applicant to ensure protection for the commercially important embodiments of the invention.
Although the new Patent Act is not yet in force, companies should prepare for the changes in good time. Companies that actively file patents or operate internationally should in particular review how the reform may affect their own processes.
Companies should consider at least the following questions:
Do we have a clear process for identifying inventions and making protection decisions?
Do we draft patent applications in a way that supports both technical protection and business objectives?
Are our language choices, translations and application routes sensible from the perspective of costs and international strategy?
Is our patent portfolio up to date, and do our key patents protect the right products, technologies and markets?
Are our patent applications strong enough also with possible opposition, appeal or dispute situations in mind?
These questions are important not only because of the legislative reform. They are part of a sound patent strategy.
The reform of the Patent Act will reduce bureaucracy, especially in relation to language requirements and representative practices, which may lower the threshold for filing national applications.
Harmonising procedures with the EPC may support better predictability, particularly for companies seeking protection in several countries.
At the same time, the reform does not remove the need for strategic judgment in patenting. From a company’s perspective, the essential question is not only whether a patent is granted. More important is whether the patent protects the right things, withstands scrutiny and supports the company’s growth, commercialisation and competitive position.
The Patent Act reform is therefore a good moment to review a company’s patenting practices more broadly. When the protection strategy, application processes and patent portfolio are in good shape, patents are not merely rights on paper. They are practical tools for protecting innovation, growth and competitive advantage.
Explore our patenting services in more detail and get in touch if you would like to discuss what the Patent Act reform means for your company’s patent strategy or application processes.
The blog was written in collaboration with European Patent Attorney Antti Leinonen.