Order of the Court of Justice of 16 July 2024, Genmab (C-181/24) Facts The pharmaceutical company Genmab obtained a first marketing authorization (“MA”) for a medicinal product “A” containing the active ingredient ofatumumab (the “earlier MA”). Subsequently, it revoked said AC. Later, Genmab obtained a second AC (the “subsequent AC”) for a new drug “B”, intended for a different therapeutic indication than drug “A”; but whose active ingredient was also ofatumumab. Based on this “subsequent AC”, he requested, before the Hungarian Patent Office, that a supplementary protection certificate (“CCP”) be issued for the drug “B”. The Hungarian Patent Office refused the application, considering that the later AC was not the first AC for the purposes of the requirement of art. 3(d) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 (“CCP Regulation”), for ofatumumab. Genmab filed an appeal with the Hungarian courts against the previous decision of the Hungarian Office. The company argued that the “first AC” for the purposes of that provision could only be an AC in force at the date of the CCP submission and that, in that sense, the Hungarian Office had erred in considering that the “first AC” of ofatumumab was the one that had been granted for drug “A”, since that AC was no longer in force at the time of applying for the CCP for drug B. In these circumstances, the referring Hungarian Court decided to suspend the proceedings and refer a preliminary question to the CJEU for clarification of the interpretation to be given to the requirement of art. 3(d) of the CCP Regulations. Rulings The CJ states that, for the purposes of art. 3(d) of the CCP Regulations, the relevant “first AC” is the one granted first chronologically for the same active ingredient, even if it is no longer in force. Withdrawal of the initial AC does not eliminate its status as a first authorization. Therefore, a CCP cannot be granted when there is a "previous AC" (even if it has been revoked and is not in force at the time the CCP is requested) and the application is based on a subsequent AC for the same active ingredient. What matters is the temporal order of the authorizations, not their validity. Comment The CJ clarifies that the mere fact of revoking a “previous AC” does not allow restarting the possibility of obtaining a CCP on the basis of a “subsequent AC” for the same active ingredient. The logic of the system remains focused on the first time the active ingredient enters the market. The decision consolidates a restrictive approach consistent with the line set in previous CJEU rulings on products or active ingredients already authorized and with different therapeutic applications. It also aims to prevent strategies of artificially prolonging exclusivity by revoking a "previous AC" and requesting a "subsequent AC" for the same product or active ingredient. María Cadarso, Senior Associate in the Legal area.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 September 2025, LEGO (C-211/24). Facts about the judgment Lego A/S (hereinafter referred to as Lego) is the holder of EU designs no. 001950981-0001 and 002137190-0002, relating to building elements belonging to a construction set, and registered on 22 November 2011 and 16 November 2012, respectively, representations of which are included below: EU design no. 001950981-0001 EU design no. 002137190-0002 Pozitív Energiaforrás (hereinafter referred to as Positív) attempted to import into Hungary construction sets comprising, among others, the building elements represented below in the second column: EU designs of LEGO Building elements of Pozitív Energiaforrás Following the complaint filed by Lego, the Tax Administration and Hungarian customs ordered the seizure of the construction sets and initiated infringement proceedings for suspected violation of Lego's industrial and intellectual property rights. On June 22, 2022, Lego filed a request for provisional measures to maintain the embargo. The request was denied by the court of first instance, considering that Positiv's building elements produced a different general impression on the informed user than Lego's designs. Lego filed an appeal with the Capital High Court, which modified the previous order and ordered the seizure of Positiv's games, considering that Lego's designs did not produce a different general impression on the informed user than Positiv's building elements. Positív filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Hungary, which upheld the previous decision of the Capital High Court. Lego then filed an infringement action against Positív before the Capital General Court. The Court questioned what the skills of the “informed user” of Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 were, when it came to assessing the overall impression made on him by the designs of Article 8(3) of that Regulation (i.e., designs that allow the assembly or connection of multiple mutually interchangeable products within a modular system). The interpretation of Article 89 of said Regulation was also raised, and more specifically, the scope of the concept of "special reasons". In these circumstances, the General Court of the Capital stayed the proceedings and referred the following questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling: 1. In a case such as that in the main proceedings, in which the proprietor invokes a design protected under Article 8(3) of Regulation No 6/2002 in respect of one or more building blocks of a construction set of the defendant which fulfill the same assembly function as the blocks of the design of the applicant, is a judicial practice compatible with EU law whereby the courts, in determining the scope of protection, within the meaning of Article 10 of the Regulation, of the design of the applicant: rely on an informed user who, regarding the function of the design and that of the product, possesses the technical knowledge that can be expected of an expert in the field; Do they consider an informed user to be one who compares the plaintiff's drawing or model and the defendant's product through a thorough, technical, and methodical examination, and assume that this informed user forms their overall impression of the drawing or model and the product, above all, as a technical opinion? 2. In the event that, in a case with the characteristics described, it is concluded that the protection conferred by the applicant's design or model extends to one or a few pieces present in the defendant's construction sets, which, however, represent a small number of building blocks in relation to the total, is it in accordance with EU law to recognize a discretionary power whereby, taking into account the partial nature of the infringement, the minor seriousness and proportion of the infringement in relation to the goods as a whole and the interests associated with the unrestricted trade of a construction set that is, for the most part, uncontested, reasons which qualify as "well-founded grounds" for the purposes of Article 89(1) of the Regulation, the court dismisses the claim to prohibit the continued importation of the construction set into the country? Rulings on the case The judgment examines both preliminary questions separately and sets out its interpretation of Article 10 and Article 89(1) of Regulation No 6/2002. As regards the first preliminary question, it concludes that Article 10 must be interpreted as meaning that the scope of protection of a design pursuant to Article 8(3) must be assessed taking into account the overall impression produced by that design on an informed user who, without being a designer or technical expert: is familiar with the different designs existing in the sector concerned, has a certain degree of knowledge about the elements that those designs normally contain and, due to his interest in the products concerned, pays a relatively high degree of attention when using them as elements of the modular system of which they form part. The impression produced on a user who, having technical knowledge analogous to that of a professional, thoroughly examines the drawing or model in question and whose overall impression rests mainly on technical considerations should not be taken into account. As regards the second preliminary question, it states that Article 89(1) must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an infringement only affects certain elements of a modular system, few in number in relation to the whole of the components of ...Read more

Judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 December 2024, Teva Finland (C-119/22 and C-149/22) 1. Facts The matter stems from applications for supplementary protection certificate (“SPC”) filed by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC based on a European patent (“base patent”) covering a DPP-4 inhibitor active ingredient (sitagliptin) and its possible combination with other active ingredients. In Finland, the first CCP on sitagliptin alone was obtained. Subsequently, Merck applied for a second SCP for a drug that combined sitagliptin with another active ingredient (metformin), on the same base patent. The plaintiff companies, Teva BV (and subsidiaries) (in case C-119/22) and Clonmel Healthcare Limited (in case C-149/22), challenged the validity of that second CCP before national courts, alleging that the sitagliptin + metformin combination did not meet the conditions of art. 3 of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 (“SCP Regulation”), since metformin was in the public domain and the combined product would already have been the subject of another SCP. The national courts referred preliminary questions to the CJEU concerning the interpretation of the notion of “product” protected by the patent and whether a combined product can be subject to CCP when one of its components has already been subject to CCP. 2. Rulings The CJ declares that Article 3(c) of the CCP Regulation does not prevent the granting of a CCP for a product consisting of two active ingredients, even if one of those active ingredients has already been the subject, on its own, of a previous CCP. Regarding the condition in Article 3(a) - which requires that the product be protected by a basic patent in force - the Court reiterates its case law (as in the Teva UK C-121/17 judgment) and clarifies that it is not enough for the combination to be mentioned in the claims: it is necessary that, from the point of view of a person skilled in the art and in light of the description and drawings in the patent, the combination constitutes part of the protected invention. Consequently, the fact that the second substance is in the public domain on the priority date does not in itself exclude the granting of the CCP, provided that the combination is necessarily included in the invention of the basic patent. 3. Commentary This ruling provides clarity on the possibility of obtaining CCP for therapeutic combinations, even if one of the components has already been subject to complementary protection. At the same time, the ruling emphasizes that the therapeutic combination must be included in the invention protected by the base patent, and not just be a mention. This ensures that the CCP covers the specific advances that justify the patent. For patent holders, the lesson is twofold: first, the route of combined SCPs remains open; second, they must ensure that the base patent clearly discloses the combination, otherwise the protection may be challenged. María Cadarso, Senior Associate in the Legal Area of ​​ELZABURU.

The Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (OEPM) has published the 2026 call for aid to promote patent and utility model applications, a key initiative to boost the protection of Spanish innovation both nationally and internationally. The extract of the call for applications was published in the Official State Gazette on March 24, 2026, establishing a limited application period that should be kept in mind. Application deadline: key dates The deadline for submitting applications: Start: March 25, 2026 End: April 24, 2026 (inclusive)* *On Tuesday, April 21, 2026, the extension of the deadline for submitting applications was communicated by 14 calendar days, starting from the day after the end of the period initially foreseen in the call. The application must be made electronically through the OEPM's electronic office. Since this procedure requires gathering and justifying technical and economic documentation, it is recommended to prepare and submit the application well in advance to ensure its correct processing within the deadline. Objective of the aid The call aims to promote and internationalize inventions of Spanish origin, partially financing the costs associated with protection through patents and utility models. Specifically, these grants aim to: Promote the use of industrial property; Facilitate access to international markets; Improve the competitiveness of Spanish companies and innovators. To this end, the OEPM has allocated a total budget of 5.300.000 euros on a competitive basis. Aid programs: national and international The call is structured in two different programs: 1. Program for applications abroad This program is aimed at financing the costs associated with the international protection of inventions. Who can benefit? Individuals, SMEs, Large companies, Private non-profit institutions. In all cases, they must have residence and tax domicile in Spain. What expenses are subsidized? Funding is provided for activities related to the international extension of patents and utility models, including: Applications to foreign or regional national offices; Application procedures, search report, examination or grant; European Patent Office (EPO) annuities; European patent validation; PCT international procedures (application, international search and preliminary examination). Eligible period: Expenses must have been incurred between 1 January 2025 and 31 December 2025. 2. Program for national applications This program is aimed at encouraging the protection of inventions in Spain. Who can benefit? Individuals and SMEs: What activities are financed? Spanish patent and utility model applications Application procedures State of the art report Substantive examination (in the case of patents) These actions must have been published in the Official Bulletin of Industrial Property (BOPI) during the years 2023, 2024 or 2025. Aid for patents and utility models The OEPM 2026 aid is a relevant tool to reduce the costs associated with the protection of inventions, especially in internationalization processes. Proper preparation of the application and supporting documentation can be crucial in these types of calls for proposals, so having specialized advice is key to maximizing the chances of accessing these grants. At Elzaburu, we have a team of professionals with extensive experience in managing patent and utility model applications, as well as processing these types of grants, supporting companies and innovators throughout the entire process, from strategic planning to the final justification of the aid.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 December 2025, Mio and Others (C-580/23 and C-795/23). 1. Facts The judgment stems from two preliminary questions resolved jointly that had been raised by courts in Sweden and Germany in relation to the infringement of intellectual property rights. In the first of the lawsuits, Asplund, a company that designs and manufactures home furnishings (in particular the "Palais Royal" dining tables) sued Mio, a company dedicated to the retail sale of furniture and household goods (including the "Cord" dining tables), in October 2021. The plaintiff argued that the "Palais Royal" tables were protected by copyright as works of applied art and that the "Cord" dining tables constituted an infringement of copyright, as they bore a strong resemblance to hers. Mesa Palais Royal Mio denied that the tables in the "Palais Royal" series were protected by copyright, arguing that these tables did not have sufficient originality to obtain the corresponding protection. According to Mio, the design of these tables is based on mere variations of previously known drawings or models that are listed in the register of designs and models registered in the European Union. In any case, even if the tables in the "Palais Royal" series were protected by copyright, such protection would be limited and restricted, and the differences between the two models of tables in question would be sufficient, in their view, to demonstrate that Mio's tables do not infringe copyright. The claim was upheld at first instance and it is the Swedish appeals body that refers the preliminary question to the Court of Justice. In the second lawsuit, the claim is filed by USM, a company that has been manufacturing and marketing for decades a modular furniture system (USM Haller) that is characterized by the fact that cylindrical tubes with high-gloss chrome are assembled by means of spherical joints to form a frame in which metal plates of different colors are attached. The structures thus created can be freely combined and mounted vertically and horizontally. USM Haller Furniture For its part, the defendant Konektra offers, through its online store, spare parts and expansion pieces for the USM Haller modular furniture system, which in shape, and mostly also in color, correspond to the components of USM. After initially limiting itself to the mere sale of spare parts, which USM did not oppose, Konektra remodeled its online store in 2017. Since 2018, Konektra's website has listed all the components needed for the complete assembly of USM Haller furniture and has also advertised the latter along with images of assembled furniture. In addition, Konektra offers its customers an assembly service to put together the loose pieces delivered into a complete piece of furniture, and its deliveries are accompanied by assembly instructions for putting together complete pieces of furniture. The lawsuit argues that Konektra, by manufacturing, offering, and marketing its own furniture system, identical to USM's, would be infringing its copyright on the USM Haller system as a work of applied art or, at the very least, would be committing an unlawful imitation from the point of view of competition law. In this litigation as well, the claim is upheld at first instance, but it is the court of cassation that raises the preliminary question. 2. Rulings In the first preliminary question, the German Supreme Court asks the CJEU whether there is a rule-exception relationship between the protection of designs and models and that of copyright which requires stricter requirements of originality to be imposed on works of applied art than on other types of works. The Court of Justice begins by recalling that the concept of "work" requires the concurrence of two cumulative elements: originality and sufficient expression. For an object to be considered original, it is both necessary and sufficient that it reflects the personality of its author, manifesting their free and creative decisions. When the creation of an object is determined by technical considerations, rules, or other requirements that leave no room for the exercise of creative freedom, the object cannot be considered to have the originality necessary to constitute a work. The CJEU then establishes a clear distinction between the criteria applicable to each protection regime, recalling that for designs and models an objective criterion based on novelty and uniqueness is applied, while for copyright a subjective criterion based on originality is applied, understood as a reflection of the author's personality through free and creative decisions. From the above, three fundamental consequences can be drawn: i) objects protected by a design or model are not, in principle, comparable to those that constitute works protected by copyright; ii) there is no automatic link between the granting of protection under the regulations on designs and models and the granting of protection under copyright; and iii) the requirements for such protection should not be confused: novelty and singularity, on the one hand, and originality, on the other. The conclusion reached by the CJEU from this reasoning is that, although the protection reserved for designs or models and that guaranteed by copyright are not mutually exclusive and can be granted cumulatively to the same object, such accumulation is limited to certain cases. Specifically, it is required that the author has created a unique work that bears the imprint of his personality, which as such is protected under Directive 2001/29/EC. However, there is no rule-exception relationship between the two protections that justifies imposing stricter requirements on applied arts. In the first and second preliminary questions in case C-580/23 and the second and third in case C-795/23, the referring courts ...Read more

Judgment of the Court of Justice of 25 February 2025, BSH/Electrolux (C-339/22) 1. Facts The present judgment stems from a request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Swedish courts to the CJEU on the interpretation and scope of art. 24.4 of Brussels Regulation (I) 1215/2012 (“RB”). The facts of the case were as follows: BSH Hausgeräte GmbH (“BSH”) is the holder of a European patent in the vacuum cleaner sector. The patent had been validated in Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, the United Kingdom and Türkiye.  BSH is bringing an action against Electrolux AB (“Electrolux”) for infringement of all national parts of the patent before the Swedish courts. Electrolux opposed the claim and argued that the claims relating to the national parts of the European patent other than the Swedish part (“the foreign patent or patents”) were inadmissible under Article 1. 24.4 RB.   The first instance ruling accepted Electrolux's defense. BSH appealed the lower court's ruling and the Swedish appeals court suspended the litigation and referred three preliminary questions to the CJEU concerning the interpretation of art. 24.4 RB. 2. Rulings The first two preliminary questions pose to the CJEU the question of whether art. 24.4 RB must be interpreted as meaning that the court of the Member State of the defendant's domicile, before which the action has been brought pursuant to art. 4.1 RB, an action for infringement of a patent issued in another Member State (the foreign patent), would still be competent to hear that action when the defendant challenges, by way of exception, the validity of that patent. The CJEU answers the above question in the affirmative. In its response, the CJEU points out: That the courts of the Member State issuing the patent are exclusively competent to hear the challenge action regarding the registration or validity of that patent (the foreign patent), regardless of whether such challenge has been raised by way of action or by way of exception. However, since the previous rule is limited to litigation concerning registrations or validity of patents, the court of the Member State of the defendant's domicile before which the action has been brought, pursuant to art. 4.1 RB, an action for infringement of a patent issued in another Member State (the foreign patent), shall be competent to hear that action regardless of whether the defendant challenges, by way of exception, the validity of that patent. On this last point, the CJ clarifies: That the proposed answer is not invalidated by the fact that its application may lead to the bifurcation of proceedings (the patent infringement proceedings and the proceedings relating to the validity of the patent) before different courts. And that the court hearing the action for patent infringement may in any case suspend the proceedings when the defendant has duly brought an action for invalidity of the patent issued in another Member State (the foreign patent), if it deems it justified and considers that there is a reasonable and not negligible possibility that the patent will be invalidated by the court of that other Member State. The third preliminary question poses to the CJEU the question of whether art. 24.4 RB applies to the courts of third States and gives them exclusive competence to assess the validity of a patent issued or validated in those States. The CJEU answers the previous question in the negative. But it adds that the jurisdictional body of a Member State that hears, on the basis of art. 4.1 RB of an action for infringement of a patent issued or validated in a third State (the foreign patent), within which the validity of that patent has been raised by way of exception, may rule, in addition to the action for infringement of the patent, on the above exception with inter partes effects. 3. Commentary The ruling in question has been welcomed by patent holders because it allows them to consolidate, in a single action and before a single EU court, the infringement of the European patent that may have been validated in several contracting states of the European Patent Convention (EPC), creating a kind of single jurisdiction for cross-border violations of European patents. The judgment has also been welcomed without reservation by the TUP, which, as the common court of several Member States (art. 71 bis RB), has been expanding its jurisdiction to hear cases of infringement of unitary patents and classic European patents for which no opt-out has been registered, carried out outside the territory of the TUP (e.g. Spain), by defendants domiciled in Member States of the TUP Agreement. Nevertheless, the doctrine proposed in the aforementioned ruling raises doubts and reservations. We point out some of them: Does the above doctrine apply to patent infringement actions brought against defendants in the EU under the special rules of jurisdiction provided for in arts. 7.2 and 8 RB? At first glance, the answer should be negative since only art. 4.1 RB, attributes to the court universal jurisdiction for the knowledge of the acts carried out by the defendant. How is the concept of domicile provided for in art. to be interpreted? 63 RB, expansively or restrictively? The bifurcation of procedures in patent matters is a procedural institution foreign to Spanish procedural law and raises the risk of contradictory judgments being issued (by the court that hears the infringement action and by the court that hears the action for validity of the patent in question). There is also the risk that the ex tunc effects of the judgment issued by the judges hearing the patent validity action may lapse in the face of...Read more

Judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 December 2025, Deity Shoes (C-323/24). 1. Facts Deity Shoes (hereinafter, Deity) is a company from Elche that owns several EU designs relating to footwear. Their designs are created from catalogs of Chinese trading companies, which offer predetermined components, and which allow customization of different aspects of the footwear, such as color, material and location of buckles, laces and other ornamental elements. On December 10, 2021, Deity filed a lawsuit with the Commercial Court No. 1 of Alicante for infringement of several registered and unregistered EU designs relating to shoes against Mundorama Confort and Stay Design. On April 12, 2022, the defendant companies filed a counterclaim, requesting the annulment of said designs. They argued that the controversial designs had not been the subject of any innovation, since Deity merely marketed products offered by Chinese trading companies, and that they did not meet the requirements of novelty and uniqueness. On May 24, 2022, Deity responded to the counterclaim. The Commercial Court No. 1 of Alicante raised several doubts about the interpretation of Regulation No. 6/2002 in the sector in question, and therefore decided to suspend the proceedings and send the following preliminary questions to the CJEU: “1) In order for a design to be protected by the protection regime of Regulation No. 6/2002, is it necessary that there be a genuine design activity so that the design is the result of the intellectual effort of its creator? And, in this sense, can the combination of components based on models whose appearance characteristics are mostly predetermined by trading companies be considered a genuine design activity, so that modifications to certain elements should be considered occasional and incidental?  2) In relation to the above,… can the totality or part of the appearance characteristics of a product resulting from the customization of designs offered by Chinese trading companies according to catalogs of said companies be considered to have a singular character in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002, when the activity of the design holder is limited to marketing in the European Economic Area (EEA) those designs without modifications or with specific modifications of components (such as soles, rivets, laces, buckles…) and the appearance characteristics are mostly predetermined by the trading companies? For these purposes, is it relevant that the components are not designed by the holder of the Community design, but are instead components offered by the trading company itself within its catalog?  3) Should Article 14 [of Regulation No 6/2002] be interpreted as meaning that the author of the design may be someone who, on the basis of a design offered by trading companies according to a catalogue, has merely customized that previous design by modifying components also offered by the trader that have not been designed by the proprietor of the Community design? In this sense, is it required to prove a certain degree of customization in order to demonstrate that the final form deviates significantly from the original design in order to claim authorship?  4) Notwithstanding the foregoing, in a case such as the present one, given the special characteristics of footwear designed from samples provided by trading companies and, insofar as the “design” is limited to the selection of previous designs from a sample and, where appropriate, to the variation of some of its components, within the catalog offered by the trading company, all following fashion trends, it must be understood that these fashion trends: a) limit the freedom of the author in such a way that small differences between the registered (or unregistered) design and another model may be sufficient to give a differentiated general impression or, on the contrary, b) affect the singular character of the registered (or unregistered) design in such a way that those elements or components will have less importance in the general impression they produce on the informed user insofar as they result from known fashion trends when compared with another model?” 2. Rulings The judgment examines the preliminary questions in two separate groups: first and third, on the one hand, and second and fourth, on the other hand, setting out its interpretation of the relevant articles of Regulation No 6/2002. As regards the first and third preliminary questions, the judgment concludes that Articles 4 to 6, in light of Article 14 of the Regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to enjoy the protection conferred on a Community design, the proprietor or author of that design is not required to demonstrate, in addition to the fulfillment of the requirements of novelty and individual character, that it results from a minimum degree of design. As regards the second and fourth preliminary questions, the judgment concludes that Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that designs have appearance characteristics predetermined by a model proposed in a supplier's catalogue to the author of those designs, and that the modifications introduced by the author to those designs are only occasional and relate to components proposed by that supplier, cannot, in itself, preclude the recognition of their individual character. On the other hand, fashion trends cannot limit the degree of freedom of the author, so that minor differences between one or more previous designs and the controversial design may be enough for the latter to produce a different overall impression on the informed user than that produced by those previous designs, and, therefore, to have a unique character. The characteristics of a design that result...Read more

Rare earth elements have become established as strategic materials for multiple industrial sectors thanks to their unique optical, electronic and chemical properties. From energy to microelectronics, including document security, they allow the development of technical solutions that are difficult to replicate and, therefore, of high competitive value. The recent patent obtained by the University of La Laguna (ULL) on anti-counterfeiting security inks based on rare earths is a clear example of how scientific research can be transformed into technology protected by patents, with direct applications in the market. Rare earths: key materials for security and authentication Although their name may suggest scarcity, rare earths are relatively abundant in the earth's crust. However, its processing is complex and its physical-chemical behavior is highly specialized. It is precisely this unique characteristic that makes them ideal for security applications. What do rare earth elements bring to this application compared to conventional materials? In the specific case of the security inks developed by the University of La Laguna, the use of luminescent materials based on rare earths allows: Defined light emissions under ultraviolet or infrared light. Suitable thermal and chemical stability for integration into inks and printing processes. Possibility of generating custom spectral combinations. Optical signals identifiable by specific reading systems. These features facilitate the creation of invisible or coded markers that strengthen protection against copying or tampering. ULL's innovation: security inks with a unique optical signature. The technology developed by the University of La Laguna is based on a procedure to obtain a luminescent inorganic material doped with rare earth elements, which can be incorporated into security ink formulations. These inks generate specific and controlled optical signals under certain lighting conditions. Potential applications This type of ink can be used in: Official documents and certificates Banknotes, tickets or securities Guarantee seals Product authenticity labels Traceability and logistics control systems In all these cases, the integration of rare earth-based materials allows adding additional layers of security without significantly altering functionality or production costs. Rare earths as critical raw materials: industrial and technological context Beyond this specific application, rare earths occupy a strategic position in global industry today. Its supply chain is highly concentrated and its availability is crucial for sectors such as advanced electronics, energy, optical systems or security. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTW0uC74r-Q En este vídeo profundizamos en el impacto que el desarrollo de nuevos materiales y el uso de tierras raras está impulsando campos como la generación y almacenamiento de energía eléctrica.. For this reason, both the European Union and other markets consider these materials as critical raw materials, promoting the development of their own technologies that reduce external dependencies and strengthen local industrial capacity. Initiatives like the one from ULL contribute to strengthening these technological capabilities around advanced materials and consolidating industrial applications based on rare earths. The security ink technology developed by the university illustrates how materials research can be translated into concrete solutions for authentication and document protection, integrating applied science and legal protection from the earliest stages of development. At Elzaburu we accompany our clients in this process, providing specialized legal advice on the registration and validation of patents. We understand that innovation, now more than ever, involves anticipating, protecting technological developments, and moving forward with legal certainty.   Bosco de la Vega, Senior Associate in the Patents area of ​​Elzaburu.

Supreme Court Judgment of 24 April 2025, Teva (ECLI:ES:TS:2025:1714) 1. Facts The litigation pits the pharmaceutical company Teva against the holder of a European patent relating to a compound intended for the treatment of inflammatory diseases. Teva requested the partial invalidation of the patent alleging a lack of inventive step, considering that the claimed technical effect was not plausible in light of the information contained in the initial application. The defendant argued that the plausibility of the effect stemmed from the expert's general knowledge and subsequent studies that confirmed the compound's effectiveness. After a procedural journey through the lower and appeal courts, the case reached the Supreme Court, which had to determine whether the plausibility of the intended technical effect constitutes a requirement to assess inventive activity within the framework of the Patent Law (PL) and the European Patent Convention (EPC). 2. Rulings The Supreme Court starts from the principle that inventive activity must be assessed in accordance with Article 56 of the EPC and the consolidated doctrine of the European Patent Office (EPO). It emphasizes that the invention must offer a technical solution to an objective technical problem, and that the claimed contribution must be credible at the time of the application. The Court adopts the notion of “plausibility of the technical effect”, developed by the EPO jurisprudence, according to which a mere statement of the technical effect is not enough: it is necessary that, based on the request and the general knowledge of the expert in the matter, the effect is plausible or reasonably supported. If the effect is not plausible at that time, the invention lacks inventive step. The Supreme Court clarifies that plausibility does not constitute a new autonomous patentability requirement, but rather a methodological criterion for assessing inventive activity. It rejects the use of subsequent evidence or data to remedy the initial lack of plausibility, as this would alter the balance of the patent system and unduly expand the content of the original application. Applying this doctrine to the case, the Supreme Court concludes that the contested patent did not provide sufficient data to make the alleged anti-inflammatory effect credible. The description did not contain experimental examples or concrete references that would allow the expert to consider the compound's mechanism of action plausible. Consequently, it confirms the partial invalidity of the patent due to lack of inventive activity. 3. Commentary: The Supreme Court ruling consolidates in Spain the European doctrine on the plausibility of the technical effect as an essential element for assessing inventive activity. The Court adopts the jurisprudence of the EPO and the CJEU, establishing that the applicant must provide, from the time of filing, a sufficient technical basis that makes the effectiveness of the invention credible. This prevents the granting of speculative patents or patents based on mere hypotheses. In practice, this forces companies to justify their inventions more rigorously, incorporating data or references that support the plausibility of the alleged effect. Ana Sanz, Associate Partner in the Legal area.

Intellectual property (IP) is not just a legal tool to protect intangibles: it is a structural economic engine for Europe. The latest joint report from the European Union Intellectual Property Office and the European Patent Office confirms that intellectual property rights-intensive sectors concentrate a large part of the continent's wealth creation, skilled employment, exports and technological investment. The study analyzes the period 2021–2023 and identifies 361 intellectual property rights intensive industries, responsible for almost 48% of EU GDP, more than 30% of employment and close to 80% of European foreign trade. In addition to attracting more than 88% of private equity and venture capital investments in the EU aimed at startups that make intensive use of IP. This data not only provides macroeconomic evidence. They also offer a strategic conclusion for companies: protecting innovation translates directly into competitiveness, funding, and growth. Next, we analyze the main conclusions of the report and their practical implications for technology, industrial, and creative companies. What are intellectual property-intensive industries? Industries that register a higher than average number of patents, trademarks, designs, or other rights per employee, compared to other industries that use intellectual property rights, are considered to be IP-intensive. Simply put: An industry is identified as intellectual property rights intensive in the EU if, for at least one of the intellectual property rights considered, the number of those rights per employee exceeds the average of all EU industries that use that same intellectual property right. These industries range from pharmaceuticals and electronics to software, fashion, food with geographical indications, and creative services. The report's premise is clear: when IP is used systematically, its economic impact multiplies. Key figures that explain the economic weight of IP The study offers compelling indicators regarding industries with intensive use of IP: They generated 30,6% of total EU employment (more than 65 million workers). 47,9% of European GDP was generated by these industries (7,7 trillion euros). 76,4% of imports and 78,3% of exports, generating a trade surplus of 108 billion euros, which helps to keep the EU's overall foreign trade balanced. Wage premium of 40,9%, significantly higher than other non-IP intensive sectors. 88% of venture capital and private equity investment went to startups operating in IP-intensive sectors. These figures demonstrate a direct correlation between the protection of intangible assets and value creation. These are not marginal sectors or technological niches, but the backbone of the European economy. Patents, trademarks, designs and copyright: how each right contributes. The economic contribution varies depending on the type of right used. The report breaks down different sector profiles. In addition to companies specializing in the leasing of intellectual property, some examples are detailed below, broken down by type of industrial property right. Patent-intensive industries: Manufacturing of hand-held power tools. Manufacturing of telecommunications equipment. Manufacturing of household appliances. Research and experimental development in biotechnology. Other experimental research and development in natural sciences and technology. Brand-intensive industries: Manufacture of other transport equipment (ncop, not elsewhere classified), such as handcarts; Production of other non-distilled beverages, derived from fermentation, such as vermouth. Collective investment, funds and similar financial entities Activities of holding companies Extraction of crude oil Research and experimental development in biotechnology. Industries intensive in industrial designs: Manufacture of other transport equipment (ncop), such as handcarts; Wholesale of furniture, carpets and lighting equipment. Manufacturing of electrical lighting equipment. Manufacture of jewelry and similar articles. Activities of intermediaries in the wholesale trade of furniture, household goods and hardware. Copyright-intensive industries: Printing, prepress and media preparation. Reproduction of recorded media. Retail sale of books, newspapers and stationery. Retail sale of music and video recordings. Video game. Industries intensive in Geographical Indications Dairy products Spirits Wine Beer Industries intensive in plant varieties Wholesale trade of flowers and plants. Research and experimental development in biotechnology. Wholesale trade of cereals, raw tobacco, seeds and animal feed. Other research and experimental developments in natural sciences and technology. Intellectual property and quality employment One of the most relevant results of the report is the wage premium. Workers in IP-intensive sectors receive, on average, 40,9% more remuneration than those in non-intensive sectors. This data has clear implications: higher professional qualifications, more stable jobs, greater productivity, and more investment in talent. Intellectual property not only generates business wealth, but also higher quality and more specialized employment. Exports and global value chains: IP-intensive sectors are notably more international. According to the report: three out of every four euros exported by the EU come from these sectors, which generate a trade surplus and concentrate greater integration into global value chains. This is explained by the fact that protected innovation facilitates: technological differentiation, barriers to entry, international licenses, and scalability of business models. IP as a signal for investors: venture capital and startups. One of the most innovative chapters of the study analyzes the relationship between IP intensity and business financing. The conclusion is clear: investors interpret intellectual property as a sign of quality and growth potential. More than 88% of European venture capital and private equity investment is directed towards startups in IP-intensive sectors. The reasons are clear: lower risk of copying, greater market exclusivity, transferable or licenseable assets, better valuation...Read more