National offices report increases in national patent applications throughout Europe: Is the EPO no longer “killing” the national offices?

No items found.
​
March 27, 2026
The Swedish National Patent Office (PRV) recently reported a 13 per cent year‑on‑year increase in national patent applications in 2025. A review of available data from across the EPO area suggests that this is not an isolated development. On the contrary, a similar trend appears to be emerging across much of Europe. In this article, we take a closer look at the numbers and consider what may bedriving this shift.

The numbers

Increase in national applications

Let us start with the data. As of writing, figures for national patent applications in 2025 are available for Germany [1], France [2], Italy [3], Sweden [4], Austria [5], Spain [6] and Norway [7] [8]. All of these national offices reported an increase in filings, ranging from approximately 4 per cent at the Austrian Patent Office to almost 40 per cent at the Norwegian NIPO.

This marks a clear departure from the long‑term trend. Historically, national patent filings in Europe have shown a slow but steady decline. The graph below illustrates the number of patent applications, both first filings and PCT national phase entries, normalised against each country’s 2014 filing level.

For context, in 2014 the number of applications was 65,963 in Germany, 16,533 in France, 9,385 in Italy, 2,425 in Sweden, 2,363 in Austria, 3,178 in Spain and 1,627 in Norway. From 2014 onwards, most offices experienced a gradual decrease. While some saw early signs of recovery in 2023, 2025 stands out as the first year in which all of the reviewed offices show a clear increase.

Why now?

It is still too early to determine whether this development represents a lasting shift. More data over coming years will be needed to assess its statistical significance. Nevertheless, the fact that the increase appears across multiple jurisdictions suggests that common, Europe‑wide factors may be at play.

The German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA), for example, notes strong growth in filings relating to computer technology and digital communications, which are fields characterised by extensive use of machine intelligence [2]. The DPMA also reports an increase in applications relating to electrical drives, a core technology underpinning electrification in transport, industry and power generation. This may be an early signal that the green transition is translating into increased patenting activity.

Historical data from EPO CA/F reports

In Italy and Austria, the respective patent offices highlight another driver: universities have become increasingly active filers [3] [5]. The incentives for academic researchers to protect intellectual property appear to be strengthening. In Italy, this trend may in part be linked to the abolition of the professor’s privilege in 2023, a reform that shifted ownership of employee inventions to universities and paved the way for more institutional filings [3].

PRV, meanwhile, points to the continued popularity of the EUIPO patent fund for small and medium‑sized enterprises, which has now been running for five consecutive years and provides financial support for IP protection [4].

The rise of self‑drafting and AI

Both PRV and the Norwegian NIPO also report a notable increase in individual inventors filing without professional representation. According to PRV, the number of applicants without representatives doubled in 2025 [4]. NIPO similarly observes a large number of applications that appear to have been drafted using AI tools [7].

From an inventor’s perspective, the appeal is obvious. Compared with the cost of professional representation, access to an AI chatbot is inexpensive, and national filing fees are often relatively low. In many cases, this reduces the upfront cost of seeking patent protection from several thousand euros to just a few hundred. Viewed in this light, the trend may be seen as a form of democratisation of the patent system.

There is, however, a less optimistic side. National offices report that AI‑drafted applications often lack clarity and contain formal deficiencies. Once substantive examination begins, such shortcomings can be difficult to remedy without professional assistance. Moreover, while AI tools may lower the entry barrier, they do not necessarily make the patent system more transparent for inventors, who may struggle to prompt these tools to address examiner objections effectively.

The growing use of AI as an ideation tool raises additional questions. Many jurisdictions have made it clear, for example in the DABUS cases, that artificial intelligence cannot itself be an inventor. At the same time, concerns remain around training data and its implications for novelty and inventive step, particularly where models are trained on data of uncertain provenance.

Conclusion

The recent increase in national patent filings points towards several positive developments across Europe. SMEs appear more engaged in protecting their innovations, activity in green and machine‑intelligence‑related technologies is rising, and access to the patent system may be broadening.

At the same time, the growth in AI‑assisted self‑drafting may increase the workload of national offices without necessarily leading to a corresponding rise in granted patents. In the longer term, this raises an interesting question: will the role of national patent offices evolve further, placing greater emphasis on education and guidance for individual inventors?

References

[1] DPMA, “Aktuelle Statistiken: Patente,” 24 February 2026. [Online]. Available:  https://www.dpma.de/dpma/veroeffentlichungen/statistiken/patente/index.html.  [Accessed 23 March 2026].

[2] INPI, “INPI Key  Figures 2025,” 03 February 2026. [Online]. Available:  https://www.inpi.fr/en/a-la-une/chiffres-cles-inpi-2025. [Accessed 23 March  2026].

[3] UIBM, “Mimit: Report  Brevetti +18,2% nel 2025,” 02 March 2026. [Online]. Available:  https://www.mimit.gov.it/it/notizie-stampa/mimit-report-brevetti-18-2-nel-2025.  [Accessed 23 March 2026].

[4] PRV, “Trendbrott i antal ansökningar till PRV,” 12 March  2026. [Online]. Available:  https://www.prv.se/sv/om-oss/nyheter/okning-av-antalet-ansokningar-till-prv/.  [Accessed 23 March 2026].

[5] Österreichisches  Patentamt, “Österreich erfindet wieder deutlich mehr: Patentamt verzeichnet  Anstieg bei Anmeldungen,” 05 March 2026. [Online]. Available:  https://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20260305_OTS0042/oesterreich-erfindet-wieder-deutlich-mehr-patentamt-verzeichnet-anstieg-bei-anmeldungen.  [Accessed 23 March 2026].

[6] Elzaburu, “Récord de  solicitudes en 2025: las cifras clave de Propiedad Industrial en España,” 03  March 2026. [Online]. Available:  https://elzaburu.com/record-solicitudes-propiedad-industrial-2025-oepm/.  [Accessed 23 March 2026].

[7] Patentstyret, “Økning i norske patentsøknader,” 25 February  2026. [Online]. Available:  https://kommunikasjon.ntb.no/pressemelding/18812322/okning-i-norske-patentsoknader?publisherId=4739852&lang=no.  [Accessed 23 March 2026].

‍

‍

The Latest Thought Leadership pieces in the Content Hub

No items found.
Stay in the Know

The Patent Strategist

Get expert insights and the top patent stories delivered straight to your inbox.

Heading
This is some text inside of a div block.
This is some text inside of a div block.

Latest Insights

Showing 0 of 100
Is Your AI Conversation Privileged?
08 May 2026
Recent US court decisions have, for the first time, tested whether conversations with AI tools can be protected by legal privilege. In United States v. Heppner, a court held that documents generated by a defendant using a public AI platform were not protected by attorney‑client privilege, largely because the AI was not used within a lawyer‑directed relationship and the platform’s terms allowed data retention and disclosure. By contrast, in Warner v. Gilbarco, another court found that AI‑assisted materials created by a self‑represented litigant were protected under the work‑product doctrine, which has a more forgiving standard for waiver.
#
Consulting
​
The evolution of nucleic acid sequencing and what it means for Genomics and IP
27 April 2026
This article outlines the evolution of nucleic acid sequencing, from early Sanger methods to next‑generation and long‑read technologies. The journey from deciphering individual DNA strands to sequencing entire genomes in hours represents one of biotechnology's most impressive transformations. The first human genome, completed through the Human Genome Project, took around 13 years to sequence and cost billions of dollars, whereas modern sequencing methods can now deliver a genome in hours for a few hundred dollars. For those interested in patents and life sciences, understanding the technical evolution of sequencing methods offers insights into how fundamental scientific advances translate into valuable patent portfolios.
#
Consulting
​
World IP Day: The big ideas shaping IP's fastest-moving fields
24 April 2026
For World IP Day, we asked experts of EIP’s five growth areas: Uniphy, Ampliphy, Stratiphy, Codiphy and Quantiphy, to share a quick insight on innovation, IP trends, and what excites them about the future. Each responded to a single, focused question reflecting the role their team plays across EIP.
#
Consulting
​
Meet the EIP team heading to INTA 2026 in London
23 April 2026
INTA's Annual Meeting is coming to London. From 2–6 May 2026, the ExCeL will host more than 10,000 trade mark and IP professionals from over 100 jurisdictions — five days of sessions, side events, and the kind of corridor conversations that turn into lasting working relationships.
#
Litigation
​
Antibody Patent Protection in Europe and the US: Navigating EPO and USPTO Differences
16 April 2026
This article explores the complexities of patenting antibody therapies, focusing on the differing requirements and practices of the European Patent Office (EPO) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). It highlights how the scope of claims, inventiveness standards, and supporting data requirements vary between jurisdictions, and explains why a tailored IP strategy is essential for innovators especially SMEs seeking protection in both Europe and the US. The article also outlines how EIP’s transatlantic teams collaborate to optimise patent applications for success in these key markets.
#
Patenting
​
Why competitor patent monitoring is critical to your drug development strategy
15 April 2026
This article explains why competitor IP monitoring is a critical part of an effective drug development strategy. By tracking competitor patent activity, companies can assess freedom to operate, identify risks and opportunities early, and make informed decisions on patent filings, licensing, and investment readiness. Ongoing monitoring also supports FTO analysis, third‑party observations, oppositions, and litigation strategy, helping life sciences businesses protect value and reduce risk throughout development.
#
Consulting
​
Biopharma Strategy in 2026: Lessons from 2025 on AI, M&A and the UPC
13 April 2026
This article looks back on a selection of key trends in the (bio)pharma industry in 2025 and looks ahead to how these may continue to develop into 2026.
#
Consulting
​
Thinking about IP from day one: strategic considerations for deep tech startups
08 April 2026
For deep tech startups, intellectual property decisions often come too late or cost too much too soon. This article explores why IP strategy should be considered from day one, even if formal protection comes later. It outlines how founders can decide what to patent, when trade secrets may be more appropriate, and how detectability, enforceability and cost should shape early choices. With a focus on practicality and commercial alignment, it also looks at how newer, AI‑assisted approaches can help startups take a more cost‑effective and flexible approach to building meaningful IP protection.
#
Consulting
​
National offices report increases in national patent applications throughout Europe: Is the EPO no longer “killing” the national offices?
27 March 2026
National patent offices across Europe have reported a marked increase in patent filings in 2025, breaking with a long‑standing downward trend. Data from Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Austria, Spain and Norway point to growing activity driven by digital technologies, electrification and increased university participation. At the same time, offices report a rise in self‑drafted and AI‑assisted applications, which may lower barriers to entry but also raise concerns about application quality and examination efficiency.
#
Patenting
​
Make your bio(pharma) IP investment ready
22 March 2026
This recap of our LinkedIn Live series focuses on helping (bio)pharma businesses make their IP investment‑ready. Across three sessions, experts will discuss building resilient IP portfolios, making strategic IP decisions ahead of funding rounds, and what the evolving 2026 (bio)pharma landscape means for long‑term IP strategy.
#
Patenting
​
Are professional guidelines making Patent Attorneys too cautious on AI?
19 February 2026
As AI use accelerates in patent practice, many European patent attorneys remain cautious due to professional AI guidelines from the epi. This article argues those guidelines are not a barrier, but a baseline for responsible use.
#
Patenting
​
Provisional Agreement Reached on the EU Pharma Package: Takeaways for Pharmaceutical Companies
17 February 2026
The EU’s new Pharma Package will overhaul regulatory exclusivity, orphan drug incentives, antimicrobial innovation, and generic entry pathways, reducing standard protection periods while introducing new rewards like transferable exclusivity vouchers.
#
Patenting
​
Beyond CRISPR: Precision to Platform
23 January 2026
Gene editing is entering a new phase, moving beyond CRISPR-Cas9’s breakthrough but costly, bespoke therapies toward more precise and scalable platforms. While CRISPR-based treatments like Casgevy have proven clinical success, they remain expensive and entangled in ongoing patent disputes over foundational IP. Next-generation tools such as base editing and prime editing avoid double-strand DNA breaks, enabling more accurate corrections and broader therapeutic potential. The field’s focus is now shifting to disease-agnostic platforms that can be adapted across many conditions, improving access and efficiency.
#
Patenting
​
Confidentiality at the UPC: What litigants need to know
21 January 2026
This article explains how the Unified Patent Court approaches confidentiality in litigation, outlining the procedures for restricting access to sensitive information, how confidentiality clubs are formed, and when hearings may be held in private. It highlights key case law shaping these rules, the balance between fair trial rights and protection of commercial data, and the penalties for breaches. Practical guidance is provided to help parties navigate applications, manage confidential documents, and understand what to expect throughout UPC proceedings.
#
Litigation
​
EPO fees are going up in April 2026: Plan ahead now
19 January 2026
The European Patent Office will introduce a fee increase of roughly 5% from 1 April 2026, affecting search, examination, designation and renewal fees. Filing, excess page, opposition and appeal fees remain unchanged. Some costs—such as renewal fees—can be paid up to three months early, allowing applicants to secure the current lower rates. EIP recommends reviewing your portfolio ahead of the deadline.
#
Patenting
​