Vol. 12 No. 2 (2026)
June 2026

Articles

Unitary Patenting in the EU: A comparative study of population- and R&D-based efficiency indicators and procedural preference

Published 2026-06-30

  • Marek Beneš
    • ,
  • Martin Hála
    • ,
  • Robert K. MacGregor
    • ,
  • Radka MacGregor Pelikánová

Marek Beneš
Metropolitan University Prague

Martin Hála
Metropolitan University Prague

Robert K. MacGregor
Metropolitan University Prague

Radka MacGregor Pelikánová
Metropolitan University Prague

Abstract

Objective: The article aims to identify, appreciate, and assess the human resources efficiency, cost efficiency, and procedural preferences of EU member states covering Unitary Patent registration via the Unitary Patent System (UPS) and enforcement before the Unified Patent Court of Appeal (UPCoA) in 2024 and 2025.

Research Design & Methods: Based on a robust framework, academic, and empirical background, we selected seven-years delay and identified and visualized data about inhabitants and Gross domestic expenditures on R&D (GERD) in EU member states in 2017-2024 along with data about Unitary Patents granted and litigated before the UPCoA in 2024 and 2025. Following the matrix triad – human resource efficiency, cost efficiency, and procedural preferences – we addressed eight research questions (RQ1-RQ8) based on data extracted from the Eurostat database, European Patent Office (EPO) dashboard, and UPCoA collection via descriptive analyses (RQ1-RQ4), regression analysis (RQ5-RQ6), and features, and thematic identification (RQ7-RQ8).

Findings: The cohorts of the most human resources efficient, and of the most cost-efficient traditional EU member states, in Unitary Patenting overlap and include Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Italy. Belgium, France, and Spain record very low efficiency, France, and Spain, while EU members joining since 2024 perform poorly. Our micro-longitudinal study found no dramatic trend changes. Emerging procedural preferences favour larger subjects with individuals mastering English. The exploration of data about the first two years of Unitary Patenting points to the leading role of Scandinavia and leaving behind Mediterranean states, except Italy, and newer EU member states, in particular Romania, and Bulgaria. The position of Germany is precarious and that of France – definitely bad.

Implications & Recommendations: European competitiveness needs Unitary Patents, ideally as many as possible, at the lowest cost, and with robust enforcement. The EU member states that excel in this should be studied carefully to model the progress in other EU member states. Specifically, we should closely observe Scandinavia to learn how to do it, while Spain, France, and especially Bulgaria and Romania to learn how not to.

Contribution & Value Added: This pioneering multi-disciplinary, holistic, and complex study confirms the importance of patents and shows that trusting in the size of the gross domestic product (GDP) and population, albeit GDP per capita helps little to predict efficiency in receiving Unitary patents. The investing-inventing-patenting-innovating process entails many unpredictable factors and variables, and AI can only partially help with that, while we may still identify the best approaches. There are EU member states with a full UPS membership, with no agricultural focus, and with a lean, not overly regulatory, pragmatic, and responsible approach, in which the investing-inventing-patenting-innovating process developed uninterrupted but respected and driven by the private sector. The creative culture of these states stems from specific national mentality further supported by a good grasp of the English language.

Keywords

Unitary patent, GERD, efficiency, patenting, enforcement, procedural preferences

(PDF) Save

Author Biography

Marek Beneš

Senior academic lecturer and researcher at Metropolitan University Prague, Department of Legal Specialisations and Public Administration, Czech Republic. His research interests include legal aspects of innovations, copyright and the public dimension of the intellectual property.

Martin Hála

Senior academic lecturer and researcher at Metropolitan University Prague, Department of International business, Czech Republic. His research interests include statistics, innovations and methodology development.

Robert K. MacGregor

Lecturer and writer at Metropolitan University Prague, Department of Financial management, Czech Republic. His research interests include US and EU policy, common law, and innovations.

Radka MacGregor Pelikánová

Senior academic lecturer and researcher at Metropolitan University Prague, Department of Financial management, Czech Republic. Her research interests include intellectual property, EU law and policy, and sustainability.

References

  1. Abbas, R., Michael, K., Davlembayeva, D., Papagiannidis, S., & Pitt J. (2024). Public Interest Technology for Innovation in Global Development: Recommendations for Launching PIT Projects. IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, 5(1), 14-23. https://doi.org/10.1109/TTS.2024.3375431
  2. Appio, F. P., Baglieri, D., Cesaroni, F., Spicuzza, L., & Donato, A. (2022). Patent design strategies: Empirical evidence from European patents. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 181, Article 121776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121776
  3. Asad, A. I., Popesko, B., & Damborský, M. (2024). The nexus between economic policy uncertainty and innovation performance in Visegrad group countries. Oeconomia Copernicana, 15(3), 1067-1100. https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2804
  4. Ashrafi, D.M., & Easmin, R. (2023). The Role of Innovation Resistance and Technology Readiness in the Adoption of QR Code Payments Among Digital Natives: A Serial Moderated Mediation Model. International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, 18(1), 19-45. https://doi.org/10.69864/ijbsam.18-1.169
  5. Balcerzak, A., & MacGregor Pelikánová, R. (2020). Projection of SDGs in Codes of Ethics – Case study about Lost in Translation? Administrative Sciences, 10(4), 1-18. Paper 95. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci10040095
  6. Balcerzak, A. P., & Valaskova, K. (2024). Artificial intelligence: Financial management under pressure of transformative technology. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 19(4), 1127-1137. https://doi.org/10.24136/eq.3394
  7. Barabino, G. (2019). Reframing innovation. Technology & Innovation, 20(4), 361-366. https://doi-org.infozdroje.czu.cz/10.21300/20.4.2019.361
  8. Baynes, K. (1989). Kant on Property Rights and the Social Contract. The Monist, 72(3), 433-453. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27903149 on February 1, 2026.
  9. Beneito, P. (2023). Choosing among alternative technological strategies: An empirical analysis of formal sources of innovation. Research Policy, 32(4), 693-713. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00079-3
  10. Beugr, C. D. (2002). Understanding organizational justice and its impact on managing employees: an African perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(7), 1091-1104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190210131311
  11. Bieńkowska, A. ., Tworek, K. ., Voropai, O. ., & Zimmer, J. (2025). Human-centric approach to creating sus-tainable innovation in the context of Industry 5.0. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 13(3), 115-134. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2025.130306
  12. Bigos, K., & Wach, K. (2021). Product innovation as the cause for export propensity in the Caucasus: Empiri-cal evidence for Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Central Asia and the Caucasus, 22(2), 90-100. https://doi.org/10.37178/ca-c.21.2.08
  13. Crass, D., Garcia Valero, F., Pitton, F., & Rammer, C. (2019). Protecting Innovation Through Patents and Trade Secrets: Evidence for Firms with a Single Innovation. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 26(1), 117-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13571516.2019.1553291
  14. Dahanayake, P., Rajendran, D., Selvarajah, C. and Ballantyne, G. (2018). Justice and fairness in the workplace: a trajectory for managing diversity. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 37(5), 470-490. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-11-2016-0105
  15. Das, R.C. (2020). Interplays among R&D spending, patent and income growth: New empirical evi-dence from the panel of countries and groups. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 9(18). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-020-00130-8
  16. De Rassenfosse, G., Dernis, H., Guellec. D., Picci. L., & de la Potterie, B. V. P. (2013). The world-wide count of priority patents: A new indicator of inventive activity. Research Policy, 42(3), 720-737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.11.002
  17. De Rassenfosse. D., & Palangkaraya, A. (2023). Do patent pledges accelerate innovation?. Research Policy, 52(5), 104745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104745
  18. Decyk, K. (2025). Innovation activity in European Union service sector: Similarities or differences?. International Entrepreneurship Review, 11(2), 135-154. https://doi.org/10.15678/IER.2025.1102.08
  19. Drucker, P.F. (2015). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. London and New York, Routledge Classic.
  20. Dvouletý, O., & MacGregor Pelikánová, R. (2025). Relationship between patenting and economic develop-ment -message implied by the Czechoslovakian experience from 1918 to 1991. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2025.2591053
  21. Dziallas, M., & Blind, K. (2019). Innovation indicators throughout the innovation process: an extensive litera-ture analysis. Technovation, 80, 3-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.05.005
  22. EPO (2026). EPO Dashboard Unitary Patent Statics. Retrieved from https://www.epo.org/en/about-us/statistics/statistics-centre#/unitary-patent. on 1 June 2026.
  23. Fedajev, A., Kojić, M., Mitić, P., & Radulescu, M. (2025). Drivers of entrepreneurship in Europe: The role of digitalization, innovation, capital investments, unemployment, and sustainability. European Journal of Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-04-2024-0497
  24. Fritsch, M., Titze, M., & Piontek, M. (2020). Identifying cooperation for innovation―a comparison of data sources. Industry and Innovation, 27(6), 630-659. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2019.1650253
  25. Garncarz, J., & Michalik, A. (2025). The role of innovation in the internationalisation process of Slovakian businesses. International Entrepreneurship Review, 11(2), 71-81. https://doi.org/10.15678/IER.2025.1102.04
  26. Gourevitch, V. (1975). Rawls on Justice. The Review of Metaphysics, 28(3), 485-519. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20126667 on February 1, 2026.
  27. Gunn, J.A.W. (1968). Jeremy Bentham and the Public Interest. Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue Canadienne de Science Politique, 1(4), 398-413. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3231517
  28. Hall, B. H. (2024). Patents, innovation, and development. International Review of Applied Economics, 38(1-2), 17-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/02692171.2021.2022295
  29. Jagannathan, D. (2019). Aristotle’s Legal and Social Philosophy. In Sellers, M., & Kirste, S. (Eds.) Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6730-0_411-1
  30. Kaesling, K. (2013). The European patent with unitary effect – A unitary patent protection for a unitary mar-ket?. UCL Journal of and Jurisprudence, 2(1), 87-111. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.2052-1871.004
  31. Koellinger, P. (2008). The relationship between technology, innovation, and firm performance—Empirical evidence from e-business in Europe. Research Policy, 37(8), 1317-1328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.024
  32. Lashitew, A.A., Bals, L. & van Tulder, R. (2020). Inclusive Business at the Base of the Pyramid: The Role of Embeddedness for Enabling Social Innovations. Journal of Business Ethics, 162, 421-448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3995-y
  33. Lopata, B. B. (1973). Property Theory in Hobbes. Political Theory, 1(2), 203-218. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/191194 on February 1, 2026.
  34. Lustig, B.A. (1991). Natural Law, Property, and Justice: The General Justification of Property in John Locke. The Journal of Religious Ethics, 19(1), 119-149. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40015119 on February 1, 2026.
  35. MacGregor Pelikánová, R. (2019). R&D expenditure and innovation in the EU and selected member states. JEMI – Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 15(1), 13-33. https://doi.org/10.7341/20191511
  36. MacGregor Pelikánová, R., & Beneš, M. (2023). A Turbulent Pathway to Uniform Patent Protection in the EU. Roma Tre Law Review, 2, 39-60. Retrieved from https://romatrepress.uniroma3.it/libro/roma-tre-lawreview-02-2023/on February 1, 2026.
  37. MacGregor Pelikánová, R., Hála, M., & Beneš, M. (2025). Unitary Patent System and innovation dynamics in the European Union: The role of economic resources and R&D investments. JEMI – Journal of Entrepre-neurship, Management and Innovation, 21(2), 98-115. https://doi.org/10.7341/20252126
  38. MacGregor Pelikánová, R., Sani, M., Rubáček, F. (2024). Sustainable And Responsible Creation Of Shared Values In The Fast Fashion Industry – I Will Believe It When I See It. Visions for Sustainability, 21, 8873, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.13135/2384-8677/8873
  39. Marx, K. (1969). Theories of surplus value. London: Lawrence & Wishart London.
  40. Malla, B., & Zdziarski, M. (2025). Sustainable business models in small and medium-sized enterprises: State of the art and future research directions. International Entrepreneurship Review, 11(4), 21-35. https://doi.org/10.15678/IER.2025.1104.02
  41. Marikyan, D., & Papagiannidis, S. (2024). Exercising the ”Right to Repair”: A Customer’s Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 193, 35-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05569-9
  42. Michael, K., & Abbas, R. (2020). What is public interest technology? International Symposium on Technology and Society [online]. Retrieved from https://attend.ieee.org/istas-2020 on February 1, 2026.
  43. Moser, P. (2013). Patents and Innovation: Evidence from Economic History. The Journal of Economic Perspec-tives 27(1): 23-44. Retrieved from https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.27.1.23 on February 1, 2026.
  44. Nicolai, T.R. (1971). The European Patent Convention: A Theoretical and Practical Look at International Leg-islation. The International Lawyer, 5(1), 135-164. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40704650
  45. Nunes, P. M., Serrasqueiro, Z., & Leitão, J. (2012). Is there a linear relationship between R&D intensity and growth? Empirical evidence of non-hightech vs. high-tech SMEs. Research Policy, 41(1), 36-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.08.011
  46. Potužáková, Z., & Öhm, J. (2018). R&D investments. EPO patent applications and the economic heterogenei-ty within the EU. Review of Economic Perspectives, 18(2), 177-191. https://doi.org/10.2478/revecp-2018-0010
  47. Prędkiewicz, K., & Prędkiewicz, P. (2014). The Patents and Financial Performance of Firms – Evidence From Polish Manufacturing Companies. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 10(4), 115-141. https://doi.org/10.7341/20141045
  48. Priya, K. (2008). Intellectual Property and Hegelian Justification. NJUS Law Review, 359(1).
  49. Rahman, M.S. (2024). The Interplay among Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Self-Efficacy, and Career Satisfaction: A Cross-Sectional Study. International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, 19(1), 30-46.
  50. Rubáček, F., & MacGregor Pelikánová, R. (2025). Top innovation EU member states based on European pa-tenting: Politicians, academia and AI got it wrong?. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Eco-nomic Policy, 20(3), 953-997. https://doi.org/10.24136/eq.3883
  51. Saikia, M., Das, P., & Neog, D. (2023). Evolution of growth theory: From Harrod to Romer. Theoretical and Applied Economics, Volume XXX, 2(635), 125-138.
  52. Scellato, G. (2007). Patents, firm size and financial constraints: An empirical analysis for a panel of Italian manufacturing firms. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31(1), 55-76. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bel006
  53. Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  54. Schumpeter, J. (2003). Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. In Alois Schumpeter & Joseph Backhaus (Eds.), The European Heritage in Economics and the Social Sciences (pp. 5-59). Boston: Springer.
  55. Śledzik, K. (2013). Schumpeter’s view on innovation and entrepreneurship. SSRN Electronic Journal, 89-94. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2257783
  56. Ujwary-Gil, A., & Florek-Paszkowska, A. (2025). Introduction to the innovability Index: More than the fusion of innovation and sustainability. Journal of Entrepreneurship. Management and Innovation, 21(2), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.7341/20252121
  57. UPC (2026). Unified Patent Court Overview. Retrieved from https://www.unifiedpatentcourt.org/en/organisation/upc-member-states. on June 1, 2026.
  58. Van Tulder, R., & Keen, N. (2018). Capturing Collaborative Challenges: Designing Complexity-Sensitive Theories of Change for Cross-Sector Partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 150, 315-332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3857-7
  59. Zygmunt, A. (2025). Enhancing the relationship between firm’s green innovation and external knowledge flows: A review and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship Review, 11(1), 37-56. https://doi.org/10.15678/IER.2025.1101.03
  60. Zygmunt, A., & Dvouletý, O. (2024). Firm’s innovation culture and external collaboration: Mapping the state of research. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 12(3), 161-184. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2024.120309

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

11-20 of 35

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.