Intellectual Property Netherlands 2026: Dutch Patent Act, Compulsory Licensing & UPC

The landscape of intellectual property in the Netherlands is entering a period of significant transition. In February 2026 the Dutch cabinet published a legislative proposal to overhaul the Rijksoctrooiwet (Dutch Patent Act), introducing revised prosecution standards, updated enforcement remedies and new hooks for compulsory licensing at the national level. Simultaneously, an EU-wide compulsory-licensing framework adopted in 2026 now empowers the European Commission to grant cross-border compulsory licences under defined crisis conditions, a development with direct consequences for patent holders across every Member State. For R&D managers, in-house counsel and SMEs in the chemical and biotech sectors, these parallel reforms demand immediate portfolio review, updated contract language and a clear litigation strategy that accounts for the Unified Patent Court’s expanding jurisdiction.

Executive Summary & Decision Checklist

The February 2026 Dutch Patent Act proposal represents the most substantial revision of the Netherlands’ patent framework in over a decade. It tightens disclosure and sufficiency requirements, recalibrates the balance between patentee rights and public-interest exceptions, and aligns several procedural elements with European Patent Convention practice. Chemical and biotech patent owners face the sharpest compliance burden, because claims involving broad formulation ranges, sequence-dependent inventions and supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) are directly affected by the new substantive tests.

At the EU level, the 2026 compulsory-licensing framework introduces a centralised mechanism that can override national patent exclusivity during cross-border public-health emergencies or supply-chain crises. Industry observers expect the practical effect to be a heightened duty of preparedness: patentees must now be ready to demonstrate manufacturing capacity, fair pricing and willingness to license voluntarily, or risk a compulsory licence on terms set by regulators.

The checklist below translates these changes into time-bound actions for chemical and biotech patent holders operating in the Netherlands.

Immediate Actions for Chemical & Biotech Patentees, 30 / 90 / 180-Day Plan

• Within 30 days. Conduct a rapid triage of your active Dutch and European patent portfolio. Flag any granted patents or pending applications with broad functional claims, insufficient experimental support or approaching SPC deadlines.
• Within 30 days. Brief external patent counsel on the Dutch Patent Act proposal and the EU compulsory-licensing framework. Request a written risk assessment covering each flagged family.
• Within 90 days. Review and update all licence agreements, manufacturing contracts and distribution agreements. Insert or strengthen compulsory-licensing response clauses, force-majeure provisions and supply-continuity obligations (see Section 7 below).
• Within 90 days. Evaluate whether any high-value European patents should be opted out of, or into, UPC jurisdiction before transitional deadlines shift.
• Within 180 days. Complete a full prosecution-readiness audit: confirm that all divisional, continuation and SPC filing deadlines are calendared, that biological material deposits comply with the Budapest Treaty, and that sequence listings meet current WIPO ST.26 standards.

Quick Primer, IP Rights and Dutch Institutions

Before examining the 2026 reforms, it is useful to map the categories of intellectual property protection available in the Netherlands and the institutions that administer them. The Netherlands recognises patents, trademarks, designs, copyright, trade names and trade secrets as distinct IP rights, each governed by its own statutory regime and often by overlapping EU or Benelux instruments.

For practical filing guidance, the Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO) publishes English-language resources on the types of IP rights available to businesses. The BOIP handles Benelux trademark and design registrations, while patent prosecution flows through either the national route (Octrooicentrum Nederland) or the European route (EPO, with subsequent validation in the Netherlands).

What the Dutch Patent Act 2026 Proposal Changes, Concise Legal Summary

The February 2026 cabinet proposal to modernise the Dutch Patent Act (Rijksoctrooiwet 1995) is the culmination of a multi-year policy review. The Government of the Netherlands has stated that the overhaul aims to bring national patent law into closer alignment with European Patent Convention standards, strengthen enforcement tools and update compulsory-licensing provisions for a post-pandemic context.

Scope and Definitions

The proposal updates several foundational definitions within the Act. Early indications suggest that the revised text clarifies the scope of patent protection for computer-implemented inventions and biotechnological subject matter, bringing Dutch statutory language closer to the EPO’s interpretive practice under the Implementing Regulations to the EPC. For chemical and biotech patentees, the practical impact is that claims drafted using broad functional language may face greater scrutiny during national prosecution and in post-grant validity proceedings before the Dutch courts.

The proposal also recalibrates the definition of “sufficient disclosure” to explicitly reference the skilled-person standard as applied in EPO case law. This means patent specifications filed via the national Dutch route will be judged against a disclosure threshold that more closely mirrors the standard applied by the EPO Boards of Appeal, a change that tightens the requirements for applicants who previously relied on the less rigorous Dutch national examination.

New Procedural and Substantive Tests

Several procedural changes stand out for patent practitioners and their clients. The proposed amendments introduce refined rules on the burden of proof in infringement proceedings, particularly for process patents in the chemical and pharmaceutical sectors. Where a product is new, the defendant may bear a heavier burden to show that the patented process was not used, aligning more closely with Article 34 of the TRIPS Agreement.

On the enforcement side, the proposal strengthens provisional-measures practice by codifying standards for ex parte seizure of evidence (comparable to a “saisie-contrefaçon”) and broadening the courts’ discretion to order disclosure of documents and financial records in damages proceedings. For patentees, this means faster access to evidence; for alleged infringers, it raises the stakes of pre-litigation compliance.

The bill also updates the national compulsory-licensing framework, expanding the grounds on which the Dutch government can grant a compulsory licence. The likely practical effect will be to create a dual-track system: the existing national compulsory-licensing grounds under the Rijksoctrooiwet, and the new EU-level mechanism operating in parallel. Patentees will need to monitor both tracks simultaneously.

Transitional Provisions and Effective Dates

The transitional provisions in the proposal distinguish between patents granted before and after the entry-into-force date (which remains to be confirmed pending parliamentary debate). Industry observers expect that patents already granted under the existing Rijksoctrooiwet will remain subject to current validity standards but will fall under the new enforcement and compulsory-licensing rules from the date the amended Act takes effect. Pending applications, by contrast, may be subject to the revised disclosure and sufficiency tests. Patent holders with applications in the Dutch national pipeline should therefore consider accelerating prosecution where advantageous, or filing divisional applications to preserve strategic flexibility.

EU Compulsory Licensing 2026, Triggers, Scope and Steps for Patentees

Running parallel to the Dutch national reform is the EU compulsory-licensing framework that entered the legislative agenda in response to lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent supply-chain disruptions. The framework establishes a centralised EU-level mechanism allowing the European Commission to grant compulsory licences that apply across all participating Member States, a significant departure from the previous regime, which relied exclusively on national compulsory-licensing laws.

When Can EU Compulsory Licensing Be Invoked?

The EU framework defines a set of crisis-related triggers, including declared public-health emergencies, critical shortages of essential products (such as pharmaceuticals, vaccines and certain chemical inputs), and situations where a patent holder’s refusal to license on reasonable terms impedes the EU’s crisis-response capability. The mechanism is designed as a tool of last resort: voluntary licensing negotiations must demonstrably fail before the Commission can activate the compulsory route.

For chemical and biotech patentees, the triggers are broadly drawn. A supply shortage of a patented active pharmaceutical ingredient, a critical agrochemical or even an essential industrial enzyme could, in principle, meet the threshold, provided the Commission determines that the shortage constitutes a genuine crisis affecting multiple Member States.

Interaction with the Dutch Patent Act

The EU framework does not replace national compulsory-licensing laws; it supplements them. The Netherlands retains its own compulsory-licensing provisions under the Rijksoctrooiwet (as amended by the 2026 proposal). In practice, this creates a dual-exposure scenario: a patent validated in the Netherlands could be subject to a national compulsory licence under Dutch law and an EU-wide compulsory licence under the new framework, potentially on different terms and timelines. The likely practical effect will be that patentees need parallel monitoring processes, tracking both national policy signals (from the Ministry of Economic Affairs) and EU-level declarations (from the Commission).

Practical Steps to Mitigate Compulsory-Licensing Risk

• Document voluntary licensing efforts. Maintain a clear paper trail of licence offers, negotiations and terms. The strongest defence against a compulsory licence is evidence that you are already licensing on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.
• Ensure manufacturing capacity and supply-chain resilience. Regulators are more likely to invoke compulsory licensing where patentees cannot demonstrate the ability to meet demand. Diversify production sites and stockpile critical inputs.
• Monitor crisis declarations. Establish an internal process to track EU-level emergency declarations and Dutch government communications that could trigger compulsory-licensing proceedings.
• Prepare a rapid-response licensing package. Have a pre-approved template voluntary licence ready to deploy within days of a crisis declaration, including fair royalty rates, quality-control provisions and territory limitations.
• Engage with industry associations. Coordinated sector responses, such as voluntary patent pools or pledges, can reduce the political pressure that leads to compulsory-licensing action.

Sector Impact, Chemical Patents and Biotech Patent Strategy

The 2026 reforms have particularly acute implications for intellectual property in the Netherlands within the chemical and biotech sectors. These sectors rely heavily on patent protection to recoup R&D investment, and even modest shifts in patentability standards, disclosure obligations or enforcement norms can reshape competitive dynamics.

Chemical Patents, Claims, Formulations and Dosage Ranges

Chemical patents in the Netherlands frequently involve claims directed to Markush-type structural formulations, specific concentration ranges, polymorphic forms and process conditions (temperatures, pressures, catalysts). Under the tightened disclosure standards in the Dutch Patent Act 2026 proposal, patent applicants should anticipate closer examination of whether the full breadth of a claimed range is supported by working examples. Claims covering broad structural families without representative experimental data across the range may face objections for insufficient disclosure.

Dosage and formulation patents, common in pharmaceuticals, crop-protection products and food-technology applications, are similarly affected. Where a claim covers a dosage range (e.g., “0.1–50 mg/kg”), industry observers expect examiners and courts to require evidence that the invention works across the entirety of the range, not merely at a single data point. Patent drafters should consider including multiple worked examples at different points within claimed ranges and explicitly disclosing the technical effect at each point.

Biotech, Deposit, Sequence Disclosure and Experimental Data

Biotech patent strategy in the Netherlands must now account for heightened scrutiny on several fronts. The deposit of biological materials under the Budapest Treaty remains mandatory where the invention involves micro-organisms or cell lines that cannot be described in sufficient detail to enable reproduction. The 2026 reforms reinforce this obligation and clarify that sequence listings must comply with WIPO Standard ST.26 (the XML-based format that replaced the older ST.25 standard).

For inventions involving gene-editing technologies (CRISPR-based systems, base editors, prime editors), the key compliance question is whether the specification discloses enough experimental data across a representative sample of target sequences to support the claimed scope. Broad claims covering “any gene in any organism” with data from only one or two model systems are increasingly vulnerable to insufficiency challenges, a trend that the Dutch Patent Act 2026 proposal is expected to accelerate.

Additionally, the interaction between the biotech-patent exceptions (e.g., the exclusion of essentially biological processes for producing plants or animals) and the evolving EPO/national case law on this point means that applicants must carefully frame their claims to avoid triggering exclusions that were previously interpreted more narrowly.

SPCs and Regulatory Exclusivity Interactions

Supplementary Protection Certificates extend patent protection for up to five years (plus a possible six-month paediatric extension for medicinal products) for products that required regulatory marketing authorisation. In the Netherlands, SPCs are granted by the Netherlands Patent Office and can be challenged before the national courts. The 2026 reforms do not eliminate SPCs, but they alter the enforcement and compulsory-licensing landscape within which SPCs operate.

Industry observers expect the following practical impacts for SPC holders in the Netherlands:

• Compulsory licensing during the SPC term. Both the national and EU compulsory-licensing frameworks could, in principle, apply during the extended SPC period, a scenario that did not arise under the previous regime.
• Manufacturing waiver interaction. The EU SPC manufacturing waiver (Regulation (EU) 2019/933), which permits generic and biosimilar manufacturers to produce SPC-protected products for export or stockpiling purposes, continues to operate alongside the new compulsory-licensing rules. Patent holders must now navigate three overlapping regimes: the SPC itself, the manufacturing waiver and the compulsory-licensing frameworks.
• Portfolio triage priority. SPCs with remaining terms of three or more years should be flagged for urgent review, since they represent the highest-value assets and the most likely targets for compulsory-licensing action during a declared crisis.

Enforcement and Defence in the Netherlands, Courts, Oppositions and UPC Risks

Understanding how to enforce and defend patent rights is critical to any intellectual property Netherlands strategy. The Dutch judiciary has long been regarded as one of Europe’s most experienced and patent-friendly court systems, with specialised IP chambers in The Hague District Court handling both national and cross-border patent disputes. The advent of the UPC has added a second forum with pan-European reach, and with it, a new set of strategic trade-offs.

When to Litigate in the Netherlands vs the UPC

The choice between national patent litigation in the Netherlands and UPC proceedings depends on the patent’s geographic footprint, the value at stake and the patentee’s risk appetite. The comparison table below summarises the key considerations for chemical and biotech cases.

For high-value, single-market positions (e.g., a key process patent used exclusively at a Dutch manufacturing site), national litigation often remains the preferred route. For pan-European portfolios, UPC proceedings offer efficiency, but the central-revocation risk demands rigorous pre-litigation validity analysis.

Patent Oppositions and Invalidity Paths

Patent oppositions in the Netherlands can be pursued through two routes. European patents validated in the Netherlands can be opposed at the EPO within nine months of grant, challenging validity on grounds of novelty, inventive step or sufficiency. After the opposition window closes, invalidity can be raised as a defence in Dutch national infringement proceedings or as a standalone revocation action before the Dutch courts, or, for non-opted-out patents, before the UPC.

Chemical and biotech patents are disproportionately targeted in opposition proceedings because their claims often push the boundaries of sufficiency and support. A proactive defence strategy includes filing robust divisional applications as fallback positions and ensuring that key experimental data is already part of the prosecution file (rather than relying on post-filing evidence).

Border Measures and Customs Enforcement

Dutch Customs (Douane) plays an important role in enforcing intellectual property rights at the Netherlands’ borders, which serve as a major entry point into the EU via the Port of Rotterdam and Schiphol Airport. Under Regulation (EU) No. 608/2013, rights holders can file an application for action with Dutch Customs, enabling customs officials to detain goods suspected of infringing patents, trademarks, designs or copyrights. Chemical and biotech companies should ensure that their customs-enforcement applications are up to date and cover all relevant IP rights, including recently granted patents and SPCs.

Practical Compliance Playbook and Contract Protections for SMEs

For SMEs operating in the chemical and biotech space, the 2026 reforms create a compliance obligation that extends well beyond patent prosecution. Contracts, licences and commercial agreements must now be reviewed through the lens of compulsory-licensing exposure and the shifting enforcement landscape. The following steps constitute a practical compliance playbook for intellectual property in the Netherlands under the new regime.

• Portfolio audit. Catalogue every patent, SPC, patent application and trade secret that supports your core products. Assign a risk rating (high/medium/low) based on exposure to the 2026 compulsory-licensing triggers.
• Licence agreement review. Check all existing licence agreements for provisions addressing compulsory licensing. Consider adding clauses that specify how royalties are recalculated if a compulsory licence is granted to a third party, and include audit rights to verify licensee compliance with territory and field-of-use restrictions.
• Force majeure and supply-continuity clauses. Update manufacturing and distribution agreements to address scenarios in which a compulsory licence disrupts exclusivity. Include obligations on the licensee to maintain minimum stock levels and to notify the licensor immediately upon learning of a compulsory-licensing application.
• Trade-secret hygiene. Where compulsory licensing threatens patent exclusivity, trade secrets become the critical backstop. Ensure that confidential manufacturing know-how, process parameters and quality-control data are protected by non-disclosure agreements, access controls and employee-departure protocols.
• Government procurement contingencies. If your products are sold to government agencies or healthcare institutions, review procurement contracts for clauses that reference compulsory licensing, government-use provisions or price-reduction mechanisms triggered by the availability of licensed generics.

Timeline of Key Legislative Dates

Conclusion, Protecting Intellectual Property in the Netherlands Under the 2026 Reforms

The convergence of a reformed Dutch Patent Act, a new EU compulsory-licensing framework and the UPC’s expanding role creates a compliance environment that rewards preparation and penalises inaction. For chemical and biotech patent owners, the core imperative is clear: audit portfolios now, strengthen contracts immediately and build a litigation strategy that accounts for both national and pan-European forums.

Early indications suggest that the organisations best positioned to thrive under the new regime will be those that treat intellectual property in the Netherlands not as a static asset register but as a dynamic strategic function, one that integrates patent prosecution, licensing policy, trade-secret management and litigation readiness into a single, coordinated compliance framework. The 30/90/180-day plan outlined in this article provides a starting point; the specific steps will vary depending on portfolio size, sector exposure and commercial objectives.

Qualified Dutch and European patent attorneys with UPC litigation authorisation can provide the tailored, sector-specific guidance that these reforms demand. Engaging specialist counsel early, before the final legislative text is adopted, is the most effective way to preserve competitive advantage and minimise compulsory-licensing exposure in the years ahead.

Sources

1. Government of the Netherlands, Intellectual Property
2. RVO.nl, Types of Intellectual Property Rights
3. Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP), IP Guidance
4. Business.gov.nl, Protecting Your Product or Idea
5. Dutch Judiciary, Intellectual Property
6. Dutch Customs (Douane), IPR Enforcement Information
7. Unified Patent Court, Official Website