UK Government confirms Patent Box scheme

No items found.
​
March 27, 2012
#
Life
#
Patent Strategy
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

Chancellor George Osborne confirmed in his 2012 Budget that the proposed Patent Box scheme will go ahead.

When fully phased in, the rate of Corporation Tax on profits attributed to patents will be 10%. This is coupled with a reduction in the basic rate of Corporation Tax from its current level of 26% to 24% from April 2012 and to 22% from April 2013.

The Patent Box is intended to encourage companies to base their R&D and manufacturing operations within the UK by making the country more competitive with other European countries.

The confirmation of the Patent Box was a contributing factor in GSK announcing on 22 March that it would be investing £500m across its UK manufacturing sites to increase production of key active ingredients for its pharmaceutical products and vaccines. This will result in the creation of up to 1,000 new jobs and include the location of a new manufacturing facility at Ulverston in Cumbria.

GSK’s CEO Sir Andrew Witty said: “The introduction of the Patent Box has transformed the way in which we view the UK as a location for new investments, ensuring that the medicines of the future will not only be discovered, but can also continue to be made here in Britain.”

EIP can advise on the IP strategy considerations for gaining the most benefit from the Patent Box. Click here to read our guidance note or contact our IP strategists.

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

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