[3] European patents are granted in English, French, or German and the unitary effect will not require further translations after a transition period.

Twenty-five Member States had written to the European Commission requesting to participate, with Spain and Italy remaining outside, primarily on the basis of ongoing concerns over translation issues.

On 15 February, the European Parliament approved the use of the enhanced co-operation procedure for unitary patent protection by a vote of 471 to 160,[16] and on 10 March 2011 the Council gave their authorisation.

[21] It was announced that implementation required an enabling European Regulation, and a Court agreement between the states that elect to take part.

[25] In particular, there was no agreement on where the Central Division of a Unified Patent Court should be located,[26] "with London, Munich and Paris the candidate cities.

"[27] The Polish Presidency acknowledged on 16 December 2011 the failure to reach an agreement "on the question of the location of the seat of the central division.

[11][28][29] According to the President of the European Commission in January 2012, the only question remaining to be settled was the location of the Central Division of the Court.

[30] However, evidence presented to the UK House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee in February suggested that the position was more complicated.

The modification was considered controversial and included the deletion of three key articles (6–8) of the legislation, seeking to reduce the competence of the European Union Court of Justice in unitary patent litigation.

[37] On 9 July 2012, the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament debated the patent package following the decisions adopted by the General Council on 28–29 June 2012 in camera in the presence of MEP Bernhard Rapkay.

A Europe-wide uniform protection of intellectual property would thus not exist with the consequence that the requirements of the corresponding EU treaty would not be met and that the European Court of Justice could therefore invalidate the legislation.

On 30 May 2011, Italy and Spain challenged the council's authorisation of the use of enhanced co-operation to introduce the trilingual (English, French, German) system for the unitary patent, which they viewed as discriminatory to their languages, with the CJEU on the grounds that it did not comply with the EU treaties.

[44] The case was dismissed by the court in April 2013,[42][45] however Spain launched two new challenges with the EUCJ in March 2013 against the regulations implementing the unitary patent package.

[9] As of March 2022, neither of the two remaining non-participants in the unitary patent (Spain and Croatia) had requested the European Commission to participate.

In addition to regulations regarding the court structure, it also contains substantive provisions relating to the right to prevent use of an invention and allowed use by non-patent proprietors (e.g. for private non-commercial use), preliminary and permanent injunctions.

[86] How the EU Commission has presented the expected cost savings has however been sharply criticized as exaggerated and based on unrealistic assumptions.

Twelve states signed the Agreement: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and United Kingdom.

All of those states would need to have ratified the Agreement to cause it to enter into force,[92] but only seven did so: Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and United Kingdom.

[93][94] Nevertheless, a majority of member states of the EEC at that time introduced some harmonisation into their national patent laws in anticipation of the entry in force of the CPC.

In 2000, renewed efforts from the European Union resulted in a Community Patent Regulation proposal, sometimes abbreviated as CPR.

After the council in March 2004, EU Commissioner Frits Bolkestein said that "The failure to agree on the Community Patent I am afraid undermines the credibility of the whole enterprise to make Europe the most competitive economy in the world by 2010."

[97]Jonathan Todd, Commission's Internal Market spokesman, declared: Normally, after the common political approach, the text of the regulation is agreed very quickly.

(...) It is extremely unfortunate that European industry's competitiveness, innovation and R&D are being sacrificed for the sake of preserving narrow vested interests.

[98]European Commission President Romano Prodi, asked to evaluate his five-year term, cited as his weak point the failure of many EU governments to implement the "Lisbon Agenda", agreed in 2001.

However, on 16 January 2006 the European Commission "launched a public consultation on how future action in patent policy to create an EU-wide system of protection can best take account of stakeholders' needs."

[5] According to the European Commission, the consultation showed that there is widespread support for the Community patent but not at any cost, and "in particular not on the basis of the Common Political Approach reached by EU Ministers in 2003".

[5] In February 2007, EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy was quoted as saying: The proposal for an EU-wide patent is stuck in the mud.

[101] The European Commission released a white paper in April 2007 seeking to "improve the patent system in Europe and revitalise the debate on this issue.

[105] In November 2007, EU ministers were reported to have made some progress towards a community patent legal system, with "some specific results" expected in 2008.

[113] On 10 November 2010, it was announced that no agreement had been reached and that, "in spite of the progress made, [the Competitiveness Council of the European Union had] fallen short of unanimity by a small margin,"[114] with commentators reporting that the Spanish representative, citing the aim to avoid any discrimination,[115] had "re-iterated at length the stubborn rejection of the Madrid Government of taking the 'Munich' three languages regime (English, German, French) of the European Patent Convention (EPC) as a basis for a future EU Patent.