A great innovation does not always come from a radically new idea. Sometimes, the real leap lies in changing packaging, transferring technology from one sector to another, listening to how consumer needs evolve, or solving a technical limitation that seemed inevitable. The history of many everyday or world-renowned inventions demonstrates that success rarely depends on a single moment of inspiration. Between invention and its arrival on the market, decisions related to design, protection, branding, communication, user experience, or the ability to continue evolving are involved. And some of them, although they may seem minor, end up determining the future of innovation. LEGO: when a patent ends up building much more than a product In 1958, LEGO patented the interlocking system of its well-known bricks. The technical solution was fundamental: it allowed the pieces to be joined firmly and, at the same time, separated for reuse time and time again. But reducing the history of LEGO to that invention would leave out much of what explains its subsequent journey. Over time, the company stopped focusing its communication solely on the constructions that could be made with its pieces and began to focus on something much broader: imagination, creativity and the almost infinite possibilities of play. The product remained essentially the same. What changed was the way value was built around it.  The brand, its positioning, and the way the consumer interprets the product can extend, transform, and multiply the value of the initial idea. The toothpaste tube: an innovation hidden in the packaging. Today it is difficult to imagine toothpaste outside of its tube. However, at the end of the 19th century, it was commonly sold in glass jars from which several members of a family would serve themselves. The change came when, in 1892, Washington Sheffield observed the tubes used to contain oil paint and used them to package toothpaste. The modification made the product more hygienic, allowed for better dosing, and simplified its use. The solution was subsequently adopted by other companies and would eventually become the standard format. The toothpaste wasn't new. Neither was the tube. The innovation lay in combining two known elements in a different way. It is a logic that is constantly repeated in innovation: looking outside of one's own sector can reveal solutions that have been working for years in other contexts and that, transferred to a new need, completely change the user experience. The roll-on: when a pen inspires another way to apply deodorant Something similar happened with another object that we use practically without thinking: the roll-on deodorant. Its mechanism is based on a simple principle. A ball rotates, collects a quantity of liquid, and distributes it over a surface. It is the same logic that had allowed the development of the pen. Applied to the field of personal hygiene, this technology solved a different problem and gave rise to a new way of using the product. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyIqECvmmlg Las medias de nailon: innovar también significa saber cambiar Cuando aparecieron en el mercado, las medias de nailon destacaban por propiedades que representaban una mejora considerable frente a alternativas anteriores: eran resistentes, elásticas y ofrecían buenas prestaciones. However, consumers began to look for thinner, more transparent, and aesthetically appealing stockings. Resilience is no longer the only decisive attribute. The product evolved to respond to these new preferences and its advertising also changed, gradually shifting from highlighting durability to placing greater importance on image. This example shows us how a good product is only one part of the journey. Observing how the market changes, detecting new expectations, and adapting both the solution and its positioning can be just as important to maintain relevance. Gillette: invent a product and teach the consumer how to use it. King C. Gillette developed a double-edged disposable razor that offered a new way to shave comfortably at home. However, introducing an unknown technology to the market also involves educating the consumer and showing them the benefits of changing their habits. Gillette combined the product with educational advertising, easily recognizable packaging, and promotions that made the razor more accessible. The technical innovation was thus accompanied by a commercial and communication strategy aimed at making a new way of shaving understandable. Dunlop: Solving a small problem and ending up transforming an industry. John Boyd Dunlop developed an air-filled tire seeking to make his son's tricycle rides more comfortable. The solution initially responded to a very specific need, but it quickly transformed and the application moved to cycling, motorcycles and cars. Although its commercial and technological success was undisputed, years later it was discovered that Robert William Thomson had already patented a similar idea in 1845, which led to the cancellation of several of Dunlop's patents for lack of novelty. IMAX and The Odyssey: innovating by removing the barrier that prevented progress. On other occasions, innovation appears because there is an extraordinary technology that cannot yet be used as desired. Christopher Nolan had wanted to shoot a full movie in 70mm IMAX format for years. The image quality made it especially attractive, but the cameras posed significant difficulties: their size and, above all, the noise they generated complicated their use during a complete shoot and especially in scenes with dialogue. For The Odyssey, IMAX worked for two years with the director and his director of photography to develop a new generation of cameras capable of overcoming those limitations. The new camera incorporated materials from industries such as aerospace and Formula 1 to reduce weight, a redesigned film transport mechanism to decrease noise, a digital interface to monitor its operation, and a new acoustic shielding system that reduced noise and vibrations. This time, it wasn't about questioning existing technology, but rather...Read more

Can the appearance of a product influence the purchase decision? Yes. Industrial design not only makes a product more attractive: it can also convey quality, innovation, confidence, and differentiation from other similar products. The recent report from the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) confirms this idea with relevant data. 72% of European consumers consider product design important when deciding what to buy, and almost three out of four are willing to pay more for a product with a better design. In Spain, that figure also reaches 73%. But the report allows us to go one step further. If industrial design influences consumer choice, it also becomes an asset especially vulnerable to copying, imitation, and counterfeiting. Therefore, protecting the appearance of a product is not just an aesthetic issue. It is a strategic decision within the management of a company's industrial property. What does industrial design protect? Industrial design protects the configuration or external appearance of a product. That is, its lines, contours, shape, colors, textures, materials, ornamentation, or the combination of these elements. It does not protect an abstract idea or a technical solution in itself. For that purpose, there are other mechanisms, such as patents or utility models. Industrial design protects the specific way in which a product is visually presented in the market. This can be applied to very different products: furniture, containers, bags, jewelry, clothing, electronic devices, industrial parts, lighting, toys, packaging or everyday consumer goods. In markets where many products offer similar functionalities, appearance can be decisive. A recognizable package, a unique shape, or a consistent visual style can help consumers identify, remember, and prefer a product over others. This point is especially relevant in the digital environment. Purchase decisions are increasingly taking place on marketplaces, social media, and e-commerce platforms, where the product's image carries significant weight before the consumer can physically touch, try, or compare it. Industrial design and counterfeiting: a direct relationship. Counterfeiting does not always consist of copying a brand or reproducing a logo. In many cases, what is imitated is the appearance of the product. A counterfeit product can reproduce the shape of a handbag, the setting of a piece of jewelry, the design of a shoe, the silhouette of a lamp, or the overall appearance of a package. Sometimes it will also incorporate a third-party brand. Other times it will try to visually approximate the original product without exactly copying its distinctive mark. That is where the protection of industrial designs acquires an obvious practical utility. The trademark protects the sign that identifies the business origin: a name, a logo, a graphic combination or, in certain cases, a distinctive shape. Industrial design, on the other hand, protects the external appearance of the product. Both figures can be complementary and, in sectors exposed to copying, it is advisable to analyze them in a coordinated manner. For example, in fashion, jewelry, watches, furniture, accessories, electronics or packaging, the consumer often recognizes the product by its appearance before other elements. If that appearance is copied, the damage can go beyond a lost sale. It can affect the company's reputation, create confusion in the market, and weaken the investment made in creativity, development, and communication. Why the best-designed products are more vulnerable. At first glance, the more recognizable an industrial design is, the more value it can generate. But it can also be more attractive to those seeking to take advantage of that value without assuming the costs of creation, manufacturing, quality, or positioning. The EUIPO report notes that sectors where design plays a key role are particularly vulnerable to counterfeiting. In the European Union, estimated annual losses reach 12.000 billion euros in the textile and clothing sector and 2.700 billion euros in handbags and jewelry. In Spain alone, counterfeiting causes losses of more than 1.200 billion euros in these sectors. E-commerce has intensified this risk. A copy of an industrial design can appear on a marketplace, circulate on social media, be promoted through targeted ads, or reach the consumer from international channels in a very short time. This poses an added difficulty for businesses. By the time the infringement is detected, the counterfeit product may already be distributed across different platforms or territories. In that scenario, having a registered design can facilitate action, because it allows for clearer proof of what appearance was protected, since when and in what territorial area. It's not just a problem for big companies. Counterfeiting is often associated with large companies, but SMEs are also especially vulnerable to the copying of industrial designs. Many small and medium-sized enterprises base their differentiation on a few products or a unique appearance that constitutes an essential part of their competitive advantage. When a third party copies those designs and sells them at a lower price, the consequences can be significant. since SMEs usually have fewer resources to monitor and act against infringements. The EUIPO report points precisely to this gap. Although companies that register industrial property rights tend to show better economic indicators, only around 1% of EU SMEs hold registered design rights. The figure shows a clear margin for improvement. Many companies invest in creating attractive products, but they don't always incorporate industrial design protection into their planning. And, in many cases, the problem arises when the product has already been successful and copies begin to appear. How to integrate industrial design into the company's strategy. Protecting industrial design should begin with a simple question: what visual elements make this product recognizable or different? From there, it's necessary to identify which products, packaging, collections, components, or...Read more

The energy transition has become one of the major drivers of technological innovation on a global scale. For decades, the debate has focused on how to generate energy more cleanly. Today, the focus has shifted to an equally critical issue: how to store, manage, and transport that energy efficiently. In this new scenario, batteries have taken on a leading role. Data from the latest State of Energy Innovation report by the International Energy Agency (IEA) clearly shows this trend: around 40% of energy-related patents are linked to storage technologies. From the perspective of industrial property, this data reflects an increasingly visible reality: energy storage has become one of the most competitive fields in the current technological landscape. Energy storage as the cornerstone of innovation The growth in applications in areas such as electricity generation, new materials or power electronics, but especially in energy storage, is not accidental. This is explained by the convergence of several structural factors that are transforming the global energy system: Progressive electrification of mobility. Expansion of renewable energies. Need for more flexible and resilient electrical networks. As a result, in the field of storage, innovation is shifting towards solutions capable of: Improving energy density. Reduce loading times. Increase battery life. New materials for more efficient batteries Much of the current innovation in energy storage is focused on the development of advanced materials. The goal is to improve three key variables: energy density (more storage capacity), charging speed, and battery lifespan. Although lithium remains the predominant material in many current solutions, research is moving towards new chemical compositions, alloys, and advanced materials capable of delivering better performance without compromising system safety or stability. In this context, elements such as rare earth elements and other critical materials are acquiring increasing strategic importance. Their role is not limited to the electrical or magnetic properties they provide, but also to their impact on global supply chains and the geopolitics of technological resources. The increase in patents in storage technologies From the perspective of industrial property, the development of batteries is reflected in a sustained growth of patent applications related to energy storage. This increase is not limited to a single technological area. On the contrary, innovation is distributed across different complementary fields: conductive materials with lower electrical losses, more efficient generator designs based on permanent magnets, and battery architectures that optimize energy transfer and storage. This multidisciplinary nature explains why inventions in this sector combine Chemistry, Electronics and Software. For patent professionals, this evolution poses new challenges, both in assessing the patentability of inventions and in the strategic management of increasingly complex rights portfolios. Electric vehicles and batteries: an inseparable relationship. One of the sectors where the evolution of batteries is most visible is the automotive sector. The range of electric vehicles and charging times depend directly on technological development in energy storage. Every improvement in energy density or charging efficiency has an immediate impact on the commercial viability of these technologies. Therefore, the automotive industry has become one of the most active players in the race to register patents related to batteries. Large manufacturers, technology companies and research centers are competing to develop solutions that will increase storable kilowatt-hours and optimize energy efficiency. In this context, patent protection becomes a key element to ensure competitive advantages in a highly innovative market. Innovation in electrical networks and energy transport The energy transition does not depend solely on the development of new batteries. It also requires significant advances in the transport and distribution of electricity. Reducing losses in electricity networks is a priority from both an economic and an environmental point of view. Therefore, a significant part of current research is focused on developing new conductive materials capable of minimizing energy dissipation in high-voltage cables. Although these innovations receive less media attention than other emerging technologies, their impact on the overall efficiency of the energy system is fundamental. Industrial property as an indicator of technological competition: The trend in patent applications offers a privileged perspective to understand where innovation is heading. In the energy sector, the growing number of patents related to storage reflects intense technological competition among companies, research centers, and countries. Industrial property not only protects inventions, but also acts as a strategic tool to consolidate positions in global markets. In sectors where innovation cycles are becoming increasingly rapid, an appropriate protection strategy is essential to transform scientific advances into real competitive advantages. Batteries as a strategic asset in the energy transition. The recent evolution of the energy sector shows that the transition towards a more sustainable model is not being defined solely in wind farms or solar plants. Much of this transformation is taking place in laboratories and research centers where new materials, storage architectures, and energy management technologies are being developed. In this context, batteries have gone from being just another technical component to becoming a strategic asset that shapes innovation, investment, and industrial policies for the coming years. Understanding this dynamic is essential for technology companies, investors, public administrations, and intellectual property professionals involved in the development of these technologies.   Bosco de la Vega, European Patent Agent in Elzaburu.

The Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (OEPM) and the Centre for Technological Development and Innovation (CDTI) have signed an agreement to promote the use of industrial property rights in research, development and innovation projects. Among its most relevant measures is a 30% discount on certain technological information services for entities linked to CDTI programs and tenders. What changes with the new agreement between the OEPM and the CDTI? The agreement creates a collaborative framework to connect innovation funding with the protection of its results. Its objective is to bring industrial property closer to companies and other agents of the Spanish innovation system. The agreement was signed on May 24, 2026 and published in the Official State Gazette on June 30, 2026. Its duration will be four years from the date it becomes effective, with the possibility of extension for up to four additional years. Who will be able to benefit from the 30% discount? The discount is aimed at entities that are beneficiaries of CDTI aid and those awarded innovative public procurement tenders managed by this organization. The reduction will be applied to the price of Patent Technology Reports and Technology Watch Reports requested by these entities. The agreement refers for its application to Order IET/1186/2015, which establishes the public prices of the OEPM. What can these reports be used for? The agreement positions Patent Technology Reports and Technology Watch Reports as support tools for decision-making in aid programs and innovative public procurement actions. More training and support in industrial property. The discount is just one of the measures planned. The OEPM will collaborate in information sessions and training activities aimed at CDTI staff, the entities benefiting from its programs (with a specific reference to NEOTEC) and the organizations adhering to the PIDI Network. A mechanism is also planned to resolve queries on industrial property and the joint development of contract models, guides, manuals and protocols that promote knowledge transfer. For its part, the CDTI will promote the protection and registration of intangible assets generated by the beneficiaries of its programs. How will the discount be requested? For the time being, the agreement expressly recognizes the 30% reduction, but does not detail the procedure for applying it. The text published in the BOE does not indicate what documentation must be submitted, how the status of beneficiary or awardee will be accredited, or whether the discount will be applied automatically. It will be necessary to pay attention to the next updates that the OEPM and/or the CDTI may publish to learn in more detail how this discount will be applied and what steps interested entities should follow. Industrial property from the start of the innovative project. The agreement reinforces a relevant idea for companies that develop technology: financing, protection and transfer of results should not be managed as isolated processes. Analyzing the state of the art, assessing patentability, and defining which assets should be protected can help guide investment, collaboration, and commercialization decisions. The discount facilitates access for certain entities to technological information tools, but its usefulness will depend on its integration into a broader intangible asset management strategy. At ELZABURU we advise innovative companies and entities on the identification, protection and exploitation of their R&D&I results, as well as on the design of industrial property strategies adapted to each project.   Ruth Sánchez, Partner in the Patents area of ​​Elzaburu and European Patent Agent.

Applications for industrial designs grew in Spain during 2025, becoming the type of industrial property with the highest annual increase. This is reflected in the report "The OEPM in Figures 2025", published by the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office, which places the increase in industrial designs at 14,8%, above the growth registered by patents (12%), utility models (8%) and trademarks (11,5%). This growth confirms the growing importance of protecting the external appearance of products within companies' industrial property strategies. In saturated markets, where many products compete on similar functionalities, design can become a decisive element of differentiation. The highest number of industrial design applications since 2019. The 14,8% growth puts industrial designs at their best level in recent years. In 2025, 16.032 designs were requested, a figure that had not been reached since 2019 and which exceeds the annual average of the last decade. The evolution is especially relevant because it comes after several instances of erratic behavior. After the declines recorded in the years following 2019, the 2025 data points to a clear recovery in the protection of design as a business asset. Evolution of national industrial design applications in the last 10 years Catalonia, Madrid, Valencian Community and Andalusia lead the industrial design map The OEPM report shows a clear territorial concentration of industrial design applications. In 2025, Catalonia was the autonomous community with the highest number of applications, with 3.920 designs, representing 24,5% of the total. They were followed by the Community of Madrid, with 17,2%; the Valencian Community, with 15,8%; and Andalusia, with 10,1%. These four communities account for 67,6% of all industrial design applications filed in Spain. This distribution reflects the weight of territories with a strong presence of sectors linked to design, fashion, footwear, retail, consumer products, decoration, furniture or the creative industry. Distribution of national industrial design applications by CC. AA. Fashion, ornamentation, and decorative objects account for a large portion of industrial design applications. The report also allows for an analysis of which types of products generate the most industrial design applications. In 2025, the three classes with the highest number of designs were clothing and haberdashery; graphic symbols and logos, surface patterns, ornamentation, interior and exterior space arrangement; and decorative objects. In the case of clothing and haberdashery items, designs linked to garments, footwear, accessories, textile accessories or ornamental elements applied to fashion products are included. This class once again leads the ranking, with 4.932 applications and a growth of 13,1% compared to 2024, reflecting the importance of protecting the aesthetics of the product in industries where the shape, cut, silhouette or visual details can be decisive. Also noteworthy is the category of graphic symbols, logos, surface patterns, ornamentation and layout of interior and exterior spaces, which grew by 23,4%. This class may include designs applied to prints, decorative motifs, graphic patterns, visual elements for interiors, commercial spaces or packaging. Their growth points to a greater focus on protecting visual elements that contribute to building identity, differentiating products, and reinforcing the brand experience. Beyond the categories that concentrate the largest volume, the report also shows very significant increases in classes that traditionally have a smaller weight in the number of applications. This is the case for travel goods, cases, parasols and personal items not included in other classes, which grows by 80,5%; stationery, office supplies, materials for artists or for teaching, which increases by 81%; and constructions and building elements, which register an increase of 76,3%. Although they start from lower figures than fashion or ornamentation, these growth rates point to a greater use of industrial design in sectors where the appearance of the product, its presentation or the visual configuration of certain elements is beginning to acquire more competitive relevance. Industrial design classes with the highest number of applications in 2025. The report data shows that industrial design is gaining importance as a protection tool within industrial property. And not only in sectors where product aesthetics traditionally play an obvious role, such as fashion, footwear, accessories, or decoration. It is also beginning to have a greater presence in categories linked to everyday products, packaging, professional use items, construction elements or solutions applied to the consumer experience. This growth reflects an increasingly clear reality: the appearance of a product can be a top-tier business asset. In many markets, shape, finish, presentation, or visual configuration directly influence consumer perception and can be decisive in differentiating oneself from competing products. All the graphics included in this article have been taken from the report "The OEPM in Figures 2025", published by the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office. Paloma Querol, associate of Elzaburu

From 1 July 2026, Phase II of the EU's legislative reform on designs completes a process that began on 1 May 2025 and many of its practical consequences become a reality before the EUIPO. Its aim is to adapt the European Union's design protection system to a reality in which the appearance of a product can no longer always be explained by a static image. Today there are digital interfaces, animations, complex three-dimensional products, moving graphic elements, and designs that are exploited in physical and digital environments simultaneously. Therefore, one of the major innovations lies in the way the designs are represented. But it is not the only one. Changes are also being introduced to the procedures for invalidating designs, to communications with the Office, and to other procedures governing applications or registered designs. More views to represent a static design Until now, the maximum number of views subject to protection for a static design was seven. With phase II, that limit increases to ten. It may seem like a minor change, but in practice it can be relevant. Many products are not well understood from only a few perspectives: pieces with different faces, products with side details, designs with ornamental elements in various areas, or items whose appearance depends on how they are perceived from different angles. Having more views allows for a better description of what is to be protected and reduces doubts about the scope of the record. Dynamic 3D representations and animated designs The most striking change is the admission of new types of representation. From 1 July 2026, the EUIPO will accept dynamic 3D representations and animated representations. The expected formats are: Static views: JPEG, with a maximum of 2 MB per view. Dynamic 3D representations: OBJ and STL, with a maximum of 20 MB per file. Animated representations: MP4, with a maximum of 20 MB per file. In practice, the record will be able to more accurately reflect designs whose appearance depends on a sequence, a transition, a movement, or a 3D visualization. Let's think, for example, about graphical user interfaces, a visual transition, an animated icon, a graphic sequence, or a product whose perception depends on its movement. Even so, greater flexibility also requires more discernment. Before submitting an application, you will need to decide which form of representation best reflects the value of the design: a series of static views, a three-dimensional file, or an animation. It's not just about using the newest format, but the one best suited to clearly define the appearance you want to protect. For example, in animated representations the animation would form part of the object of protection, so in some cases it might be preferable to choose static or 3D views to protect the design. Visual disclaimers and image correction Phase II also specifies the use of disclaimers in the representations. These elements allow you to indicate which parts of an image are not part of the claimed design. In practice, they can be useful when you want to protect only a part of the product or when certain elements appear in the representation out of necessity, but you do not want to include them within the scope of protection. The possibility of modifying or altering the representations without losing the presentation date is also introduced, provided that they are intangible details. For example, a background can be corrected to achieve a neutral and acceptable representation. This point can prevent an application from being compromised by purely formal defects. But it's important not to confuse it with a second chance to change the design. The modification cannot affect the essential appearance of the protected object. Streamlined invalidity procedures Another relevant block affects applications for declarations of invalidity of EU designs. The reform aims to make these procedures more agile and orderly. Among the measures planned, the suspension of proceedings may have a maximum duration of two years. In addition, preference will be given to certain cases based on lack of novelty or unique character when the owner of the contested design has not responded. Applications for annulment must include a duly reasoned document, with a precise statement of facts, evidence and arguments, accompanied by the main supporting documentation. Special emphasis is placed on the evidence and how it should be provided. In other words, challenging an industrial design will require more order from the outset. It will not be enough to claim that a design "already existed" or that it lacks uniqueness. It will be necessary to prove it properly, identify prior disclosures, and argue why they affect the validity of the registered design. Proof of use when invalidity is based on an earlier trademark The reform also incorporates a relevant provision for cases in which the invalidity of a design is based on an earlier trademark. If that trademark has been registered for at least five years, the owner of the contested design may request proof of use of the earlier trademark for two five-year periods. These periods do not necessarily overlap and are calculated based on the date of submission of the application for annulment or the date of submission or priority of the contested design. This change links the invalidity of designs with a logic already known in matters of trademarks: whoever invokes a prior right must be able to demonstrate its use when the rule requires it. Electronic communications and new procedural tools The reform also updates the practical relationship with the EUIPO. Communications and notifications will be channeled electronically, which requires applicants, owners and representatives to pay special attention to the management of their accounts, notices and deadlines. Another important new development is the entry into force of the continuation procedure mechanism for EU designs. This mechanism, already familiar in the field of EU trademarks, will allow for the continuation of the process...Read more

Patent and utility model applications grew in Spain during 2025, a fact that reflects not only greater innovative activity, but also a growing attention to the protection of technical developments. This is reflected in the annual report "The OEPM in Figures 2025", published by the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office, which analyzes the evolution of the main types of industrial property each year. Specifically, patent applications increased by 12,1% compared to the previous year, reaching 1.450 applications. Meanwhile, utility model applications grew by 8,1%, with a total of 2.923 applications filed. These data show that companies, universities, research centers and entrepreneurs are paying increasing attention to protecting their technical developments. Because innovating involves protecting, defending, and turning those inventions into an asset with business value. Patent applications are growing in Spain and utility models are gaining ground. In 2025, 1.450 patent applications were filed in Spain, including both national applications and international PCT applications that subsequently entered the national phase. This figure represents an increase of 12,1% compared to 2024. Regarding the number of European Patent applications of Spanish origin, there is also a slight increase, with 2.255 applications filed in 2025 compared to 2.192 applications in 2024.    Evolution of national and PCT patent applications in the national phase over the last 10 years. The growth of utility models is another of the report's highlights. In 2025, 2.923 applications were submitted, 8,1% more than the previous year. It is worth noting, contrary to the misconception that Utility Models are "less valuable" than patents, that the main applicants for utility models in Spain include large multinational corporations and leading technology companies. This reflects the crucial importance of utility models within companies' intangible asset portfolios. Evolution of national and PCT utility model applications in the national phase over the last 10 years. Madrid, Catalonia, the Valencian Community and Andalusia lead the map of patents and utility models. The OEPM report shows a clear concentration of innovative activity in certain autonomous communities. In patent applications, the Community of Madrid leads the ranking, followed by Catalonia, the Valencian Community and Andalusia. Together, these four companies account for 60,3% of all Spanish patent applications filed with the OEPM. Distribution of national patent applications by CC. AA. Photography is very similar in utility models, although with some interesting nuances. Madrid, Catalonia, the Valencian Community and Andalusia once again occupy the top positions and together account for 60% of the applications. However, Galicia ranks as the fifth community with the highest number of utility model applications, ahead of territories such as the Basque Country or Castile and León, which occupied more prominent positions in the patent ranking. This difference reflects how the utility model can have a particularly relevant weight in certain industrial and business fabrics, where the applied technical improvements play a key role. Inventions in the field of electronics and electrical energy account for the largest volume of patent applications. The OEPM report also allows for analysis of which sectors are experiencing the greatest concentration of innovation. In terms of patents, the subsectors with the greatest presence in 2025 were electronic devices, electronic engineering and electrical power; other special machinery; and chemical engineering. Beyond the overall picture, it is particularly interesting to observe which sectors have gained weight compared to the previous year. In patents, pharmaceutical products will increase from 3,3% in 2024 to 4% in 2025 and medical technology from 4,9% to 5,2%, reflecting a significant advance in a research-intensive sector. Sectors such as furniture and games are also growing, and chemical engineering is growing slightly. Main technical subsectors of patents published in 2025 and 2024 In utility models, photography is something different. The subsectors with the greatest presence in 2025 were furniture and games, civil engineering, other consumer products and handling. Furniture and games once again lead the requests and, moreover, continue to grow: it goes from 13,1% in 2024 to 13,9% in 2025. Civil engineering, other consumer products, handling, other special machinery, and chemical engineering are also making progress. To better understand the nature of these inventions, it is worth taking a look at some of the categories included in the report. “Other consumer products” groups solutions applied to everyday objects, accessories, small devices or products aimed at the end consumer that do not clearly fit into other more specific categories. For its part, “handling” refers to inventions related to the manipulation, transfer, lifting, loading, unloading or packaging of objects and materials, such as transport systems, packaging devices, lifting mechanisms or solutions to facilitate logistical and industrial processes. This evolution fits with the nature of the utility model, a modality especially useful for protecting applied technical improvements, functional solutions and developments linked to products, devices or mechanisms with a direct practical application. Main technical subsectors in utility model applications published in 2025 and 2024 In short, the data in the report The OEPM in Figures 2025 show a positive evolution of innovation in Spain, both due to the increase in patent applications and the growth of utility models. Choosing the right protection method is key. Not all inventions require the same strategy: in some cases, a patent will be the most suitable option; in others, a utility model can offer more agile protection tailored to the nature of the development. But there may also be technical assets or business knowledge that should be protected through trade secrets or combined strategies. Therefore, before protecting an invention, it is important to analyze the most appropriate strategy: whether to opt for a patent, a utility model, protection as a trade secret, or a combination of several approaches. ...Read more

The European Patent Office (EPO) has published its Technology Dashboard 2025 (formerly known as the Patent Index) and the data reflects a particularly significant scenario for European technological innovation. For the first time, European patent applications have exceeded 200.000 applications annually, confirming both the relevance of the European market and the growing strategic importance of certain technologies. Beyond the figures, the report makes it possible to identify where global technological investments are heading, which sectors are currently concentrating the race to protect innovation, and what role Europe is playing in the face of the advance of powers such as China or South Korea. What is the EPO Technology Dashboard 2025? The EPO Technology Dashboard 2025 is the European Patent Office's annual report that analyzes the evolution of patent applications filed with the EPO by technology sectors, countries, and applicant profiles. Its usefulness goes beyond statistical tracking. The report also serves as a tool to identify emerging technological trends, assess Europe's competitive position, and detect strategic areas where innovation protection is increasing most intensely. In 2025, 201.974 European patent applications were registered, representing a growth of 1,4% compared to the previous year. Although the increase may seem moderate, it gains relevance due to the current global context and the concentration of growth in particularly strategic technological sectors. Record number of European patent applications The most relevant finding of the report is that the demand for technological protection in Europe continues to grow despite a complex international economic environment and the slowdown in some traditional markets. Applications from European countries grew by 0,4%, while those originating outside Europe increased by 2,1%. This confirms that Europe remains a priority market for global technology companies interested in protecting their developments through European patents. The report also reflects a progressive change in the international innovation map. China ranks for the first time among the top three countries of origin for EPO applications, while South Korea also registers significant growth (although it is not among the top 3 countries with the most applications). This move is relevant from a strategic point of view: patent applications not only indicate innovative activity, but also an intention to compete commercially in certain markets. Technologies leading growth Although information technology continues to be the main area of ​​activity, the report shows particularly strong growth in areas related to artificial intelligence, digital communications, batteries, energy and semiconductors. Technology trends. Source: EPO Technology Dashboard 2025 AI and quantum technologies. Information technology again led patent applications in 2025, with 17.844 applications and a growth of 6,1%. Within this sector, artificial intelligence stands out especially due to the increase in requests related to neural networks and image recognition, which grew by 9,5%. Also noteworthy is the growth of quantum technologies, still a minority in absolute terms, but with an increase of 37,9%. One of the most relevant aspects of the report is that European innovators maintain the largest share of applications precisely in these two areas: artificial intelligence and quantum technologies. Thus, from a strategic perspective, the report reflects that Europe retains a relevant position in advanced research and emerging technologies of high complexity. Digital communications and 6G Digital communications was the second most active technology field and the one that registered the greatest growth among the leading areas, with an increase of 11,4%. The impetus is mainly driven by the development of technologies linked to 6G and future connectivity infrastructures. In this area, South Korea, China and the United States stand out, although Europe also registered a significant growth of 23,5% in applications. The presence of companies such as Samsung, Huawei, Nokia, and Ericsson among the main applicants confirms that the race for future communications networks continues to be one of the major focuses of global technological competition. Top 10 patent applicants. Source: EPO Technology Dashboard 2025 Batteries, energy and semiconductors The electrical machinery, appliances and energy area reached 16.997 applications, driven especially by battery technologies, which grew by 14,6%. The data reflects how the energy transition and industrial electrification are having a direct impact on patenting activity. Batteries already account for 45,1% of registrations in this technological field. Here, Asian prominence is especially visible. Japan, China, and South Korea registered very high increases in applications related to this industry. Meanwhile, semiconductor technology grew by 7,6%, with European applicants maintaining the largest global share. The importance of this sector goes far beyond the numbers. Semiconductors have become a strategic issue for Europe's industrial and technological autonomy, especially after the latest challenges in supply chains. Which countries are driving innovation? European growth was uneven. While some traditionally leading countries slightly reduced their applications, other markets registered significant progress. Spain increased its European patent applications by 2,9%, placing it among the European countries with positive evolution during 2025. Denmark, Austria, and especially Finland also stood out. In contrast, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom experienced slight declines. Another fact that is especially relevant for Spain is its leading position in the presence of female inventors. 42% of Spanish applications to the EPO included at least one female inventor, the highest percentage among the main European applicant countries. Country of origin of patent applications. Source: EPO Technology Dashboard 2025 The growing role of China and South Korea China increased its European patent applications by 9,7%, placing Japan in third place for the first time in terms of volume of applications to the EPO. South Korea also recorded remarkable growth of 9,5%, consolidating its position in strategic sectors such as information technology, digital communications, electrical machinery and...Read more

Judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 January 2024, Mylan (C-473/22) Facts This judgment arises from a request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Finnish courts to the CJEU concerning the interpretation and scope of art. 9.7 of Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (“Directive 2004/48”). The facts of the case were as follows: In 2017, Gilead Sciences Finland Oy, Gilead Biopharmaceutics Ireland UC and Gilead Sciences Inc. (collectively “Gilead”) file an infringement action against Mylan AB (“Mylan”) before the Finnish Commercial Court for the latter’s marketing of a generic drug that encroached upon the scope of protection of a CCP belonging to the plaintiffs. Gilead also requested provisional measures against Mylan, which were granted. In 2019, the provisional measures were revoked and the CCP ownership of the plaintiffs was annulled. Mylan then asked the trial court to order Gilead to pay compensation for the damages suffered as a result of the provisional measures granted and then revoked. To do this, it relied on Finnish legislation which establishes an objective system of compensation for damages in this type of case, independent of any fault. Gilead opposed Mylan's claim by invoking the doctrine of the CJEU established in the Bayer Pharma case (C-688/17). This doctrine rejected the automatic nature of compensation in these cases, stating that the lifting of precautionary measures "does not imply that the competent national courts can, automatically and in any case, condemn the applicant to compensate for any damage suffered by the defendant by reason of the aforementioned measures." The Commercial Court then decided to suspend the proceedings and refer several preliminary questions to the CJEU concerning the interpretation of art. 9.7 of Directive 2004/48. Rulings The CJEU only rules on the first preliminary question raised by the Finnish Court. This question submits to the CJEU whether the aforementioned article is compatible with national regulations that establish a mechanism for redressing any damage caused by a provisional measure based on a strict liability regime of the applicant for the measure, within which the judge is empowered to adjust the amount of compensation taking into account the circumstances of the case, including the possible participation of the defendant in causing the damage. The CJEU answers the above question in the affirmative. In its response, the CJ argues: That art. 9.7 of Directive 2004/48, in relation to art. Article 50.7 of the TRIPS Agreement must be interpreted as establishing a minimum level of respect for intellectual property rights (“IPRs”), leaving Member States some leeway to choose, where appropriate, between a strict liability regime and a fault liability regime. That the means provided by those States to ensure respect for intellectual property rights under the aforementioned Directive must, in any case, be equitable, proportionate and dissuasive, and applied in such a way as to avoid creating obstacles to legitimate trade. And that a mechanism of objective liability for damages, such as that provided for in the Finnish legal system, within which the judge hearing the case can take into account all the circumstances of the case, including the possible participation of the defendant in the production of the damage, allows the amount of compensation for damages to be adjusted and, in this way, mitigate a possible deterrent effect for the holder of the IPR. Commentary The judgment in question has been very controversial and contentious because it departs completely from the previous doctrine of the CJEU on the matter, as we have just pointed out. In Spain there is an objective system of reparation of damage in this matter (see arts. 745, 742 and related articles of the LEC). Therefore, our legal system is compatible with the doctrine of the CJEU. However, Spanish courts must, as a matter of principle, take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, including the possible participation of the defendant in causing the damage, in order to modulate and set the final compensation owed by the plaintiff in the specific case. Enrique Armijo, Partner in the Legal Department of ELZABURU.

In genomics, few issues have generated such persistent—and relevant—debate as the role of patents. Unlike other technological fields, we are not talking about protecting a machine or a process, but about something that constitutes the "essence" of being: genetic material and, its main representative, DNA. Does that change the rules? Where does discovery end and invention begin? What part of that knowledge makes sense to protect? The recent death of Craig Venter in April 2026 has brought these questions back to the center of the debate. Venter was key in the sequencing of the human genome, and an important driver of technical evolution in that field. But his contribution is not limited exclusively to the field of genetics. For him, genetic research was not just science: it was also courage. And that value, he argued, should be able to be protected and developed. In line with this, Venter was the holder or co-inventor of a broad portfolio of patents in genomics, sequencing and synthetic biology, many through Celera Genomics, TIGR and the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI). His work in the field of patents contributed to the establishment of the standards that are currently applied: it is not enough to identify a sequence → its correlation with a certain function or with a specific use is required. In recent years, genomics has advanced at a rapid pace. And with it, the approach to patents has also evolved. Today we look back to review the main milestones surrounding DNA to understand where innovation and the protection of that innovation are headed.   1. 1953 DNA Structure: The Starting Point When James Watson and Francis Crick described the double helix of DNA, they were actually laying the foundations for everything that would come later. At that time there were no direct applications, but there was something more important: for the first time it was understood how genetic information is stored and transmitted from one generation to another. Without that starting point, nothing that came after would have been possible. 2. 1973 The first leap into genetic engineering Years later, Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer took another step: to begin intervening in DNA. Being able to cut and recombine genes —even between different species— opened up a whole new field. From then on, thousands of applications focused on vectors, enzymes, and methods emerged. And, above all, very specific applications are beginning to appear: Production of insulin for the treatment of diabetes. Development of vaccines and therapeutic proteins. Industrial applications in food, such as enzymes for fermentation processes. 3. 1983 PCR: making DNA accessible The invention of PCR in 1983 by Kary Mullis made it possible to amplify specific fragments of DNA exponentially from minimal samples. This advance transformed DNA into an accessible and manageable resource in any laboratory. From an industrial property perspective, PCR gave rise to one of the most relevant patent portfolios in biotechnology: from the first patents developed by Cetus Corporation, later acquired by Hoffmann-La Roche for $300 million, to a broad ecosystem of patents on specific improvements and applications such as qPCR, RT-PCR or digital PCR, which have continued to drive innovation even after the expiration of the fundamental patents around 2005. Today, PCR testing is everywhere: Diagnosing infections such as HPV, HIV, respiratory viruses, among others. Paternity tests. Forensic analysis from minimal amounts of DNA. Detection of genetic mutations associated with hereditary diseases or cancer. Identification of bacteria or viruses in the environment or in food. 4. 2003 The sequencing of the human genome The sequencing of the human genome was another turning point. The Human Genome Project and the private initiative led by Craig Venter, through Celera Genomics, made it possible to decipher the complete order of the DNA bases. But beyond the scientific achievement, what was relevant was the change of focus. DNA ceased to be seen only as a molecule and began to be understood as information. Since then, innovation in this field has multiplied, with tens of thousands of patents related to sequencing platforms, analysis software and genomic data processing. This translates into applications that are quite close today: Genetic tests that allow us to know the predisposition to certain diseases. Ancestry and genetic origin analysis services. Identification of new therapeutic targets for drug development. 5. 2005 Massive sequencing (NGS): from the laboratory to “big data” Massive sequencing technologies sequence millions of DNA fragments in parallel, allowing DNA to be read faster and at a lower cost than the Sanger method, used in the Human Genome Project. This leap has consolidated DNA as a data asset and shifted the focus of innovation towards technological platforms capable of generating, processing and analyzing large volumes of genetic information. The impact is quite direct in clinical practice: Personalized medicine based on each patient's genetic profile. Diagnosis of rare diseases through complete genomic analysis. Genetic study of tumors to select more effective treatments.  6. 2012 CRISPR: Editing DNA The development of CRISPR-Cas9 in 2012 marked another major leap forward in the evolution of genomics. It is no longer about reading or analyzing DNA, but about modifying it precisely and in a targeted way. And that opens up a completely different scenario, also in terms of industrial property. Its uses are becoming very tangible: Development of gene therapies aimed at correcting hereditary diseases. Improvement of agricultural crops to make them more resistant to adverse conditions. Advances in biomedical research that allow for the study of gene functions with greater precision. In just a few years, CRISPR has generated thousands of patent applications globally and one of the most complex litigation environments in the biotechnology field. The origin and evolution of this technology have been surrounded by intense scientific and legal controversy...Read more