Patent and trademark jurisprudence in real time: what changes for companies with litigation in 2026

Key data

If your company has a registered trademark, patent or industrial design and has ever had to defend those rights before a court, you know what it means to wait: paper files, certified mail remittals, timelines that drag on. The agreement between the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (OEPM) and the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), published on August 5, 2026, changes that reality.

The Resolution of July 27, 2026 formalizes bidirectional electronic access: the OEPM consults specialized jurisprudence on industrial and intellectual property managed by CENDOJ, and courts access and exchange documents with the OEPM through the Judicial Neutral Point. All without paper, in real time.

What does this regulation establish?

The agreement creates two flows of electronic information that did not previously exist in an integrated form:

Additionally, the agreement covers a specific legal obligation: the remission of copies of files to courts in administrative litigation proceedings. Until now this procedure was done on paper; since the agreement entered into force, it is carried out electronically through the same channel.

The result is a system in which the OEPM can maintain uniform criteria in its decisions by having updated access to relevant jurisprudence, and courts can consult administrative files without waiting for physical shipments.

Economic and operational impact

This agreement does not generate direct costs for companies, but it does have relevant indirect operational and economic consequences:

• Reduction of litigation timelines: Electronic exchange of files eliminates delays associated with physical shipment of documentation between the OEPM and courts. Less litigation time equals fewer accumulated attorney and court officer fees during the wait.
• Greater predictability of OEPM decisions: By accessing CENDOJ jurisprudence in real time, the OEPM can align its administrative decisions with current judicial criteria. For companies, this reduces uncertainty about the outcome of appeals and oppositions.
• Elimination of paper procedures: The remission of files in administrative litigation proceedings, which previously required manual and physical management, becomes automatic. This reduces errors, losses and document management costs.
• Impact on litigation strategy: If the OEPM has updated access to jurisprudence, its decisions will be harder to reverse in judicial proceedings due to inconsistency with court criteria. This directly affects the strategy of those who appeal OEPM decisions.

Who does it affect?

• Companies holding patents with ongoing or anticipated litigation before specialized courts in industrial property.
• Holders of registered trademarks who have filed or received oppositions and are in judicial or administrative litigation proceedings.
• Holders of industrial designs who defend their rights before the courts.
• Law firms and industrial property agents who manage litigation and appeals before the OEPM and courts.
• Companies that appeal OEPM decisions in administrative litigation: the electronic exchange of files directly affects timelines and documentation available in the process.
• Legal and intellectual property departments of companies with relevant industrial asset portfolios.

Practical example

A manufacturer of industrial components has a registered patent and discovers that a competitor is infringing it. It files a lawsuit before the specialized court in industrial property. The court needs to access the complete patent file at the OEPM to resolve the case.

Before the agreement: the court would request the file from the OEPM in writing, the OEPM would send it on paper or physical media, and the process could take weeks to complete, prolonging the litigation and associated costs.

Since August 5, 2026: the court directly accesses the OEPM file through the Judicial Neutral Point electronically and immediately. In parallel, the OEPM, when resolving any administrative issue related to that patent, consults CENDOJ jurisprudence in real time on similar cases, which reduces the probability that its decision will be contradicted in judicial proceedings. The result for the company: less waiting time, less uncertainty and potentially fewer accumulated legal representation costs during the process.

What should companies do now?

1. Review the status of your active litigation on industrial property: if you have proceedings in progress before courts or in administrative litigation against OEPM decisions, inform your attorney or industrial property agent of this change so they can adjust litigation strategy.
2. Update your strategy for appealing OEPM decisions: given that the OEPM now accesses CENDOJ jurisprudence in real time, arguments based on inconsistency between the administrative decision and judicial criteria will be harder to sustain. Review with your legal advisor whether pending appeals remain viable on the same terms.
3. Verify that your files at the OEPM are updated and complete: since they are now electronically accessible by courts, any documentary deficiency in the file can have direct impact on litigation without possibility of late remediation.
4. Inform the legal department and CFO: although there are no direct costs, the reduction in timelines can affect accounting provisions for ongoing litigation. Review whether estimates of duration and cost of proceedings should be adjusted.
5. Consult the official source to know the full text of the agreement and its specific application conditions: BOE-A-2026-17064.

Official source

View complete regulation in official source

Notice: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific decisions, consult a qualified professional. Source: https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2026-17064