Finland’s New Patents Act: Towards a New Era of Innovation?

Authors: Vilhelm Schröder, Joel Ettanen Read time: 5 min

Finland has taken a decisive step in modernising its intellectual property framework. On 26 June 2026, the President of the Republic confirmed the new Patents Act, bringing to a close a legislative process that began in May 2022 when the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment convened a working group to prepare a comprehensive overhaul of patent legislation.

The new Act will replace the current Patents Act from 1967 in its entirety and is set to enter into force on 1 June 2027. This is the first comprehensive reform of Finnish patent law in decades, and it touches virtually every aspect of the patent lifecycle, from application to enforcement.

The reform was not undertaken in isolation. The new Patents Act has been designed with one eye firmly on the European Patent Convention and the other on recent developments across the Nordic region, particularly Sweden’s new Patent Act that entered into force in 2025. The aim has been to align Finnish national patent law more closely with international and European standards while preserving features that serve the Finnish innovation ecosystem. With 1,829 national patent applications filed in 2024 and 2,336 European patent applications filed by Finnish companies in 2023, ranking fourth per capita in Europe, the national patent system remains a vital tool for the country’s innovation-driven economy. The reform is also accompanied by parallel proposals to amend the Utility Model Act and the Defence Inventions Act, both of which are expected to be submitted to Parliament in summer or early autumn 2026 with the aim of all three laws entering into force simultaneously.

AI Cannot Be an Inventor

One of the most closely watched elements of the reform is the express codification that an inventor must be a natural person. While this position has been understood in practice, Section 1 of the new Act makes it explicit: a patent may only be obtained by the natural person who made the invention or by a person to whom the inventor’s right has been transferred. The Government Bill takes an unequivocal stance that artificial intelligence cannot be recognised as an inventor. In an era of rapid advances in generative AI and autonomous research systems, this codification provides welcome legal certainty and places Finland in line with the prevailing approach across Europe and at the European Patent Office.

Reframing Patent Scope and Litigation

If the inventor rule addresses the starting point of a patent’s life, the next significant reform tackles what happens when patents are challenged. Perhaps the most significant procedural change concerns the regime for limiting a patent’s scope during litigation. In administrative proceedings regarding validity, repeated limitation requests that prolonged proceedings were considered an issue.  A new provision in Section 121 restricts the introduction of new claim sets in appeal proceedings to cases where a valid reason exists, enabling the Market Court to focus on reviewing the legality of the decision under appeal rather than readdressing the patent’s scope from scratch. Furthermore, the new Act expressly introduces a possibility of partial invalidation under Section 113(2) as the sole mechanism for narrowing patent scope during invalidity court proceedings. Parliament added a further refinement: amended claims presented in invalidity proceedings must also satisfy the clarity and conciseness requirements of Section 29.

Easing Administrative Burdens

On the administrative side, the reform delivers tangible cost savings for applicants. Section 27 eases translation requirements by deferring the obligation to translate English-language patent claims from the publication stage to the point immediately before grant. The authority’s duty to translate applications filed in the national languages has also been removed. The Ministry estimates these changes will save companies approximately EUR 600,000 per year in aggregate, based on roughly 1,800 applications annually and an average saving of about EUR 500 per application. The reform also abolishes the rarely used “split-off” (in Finnish: lohkaisu) procedure for patent applications, replacing it with a streamlined mechanism under Section 34 that allows an applicant to divide an application covering multiple inventions into several separate divisional applications.

Parliamentary Amendments and Structural Reforms

The reforms described above largely reflect the Government’s original vision. The parliamentary process, however, produced several notable amendments that were not part of the original Government Bill. The most notable of these concerned the state’s power over patented inventions in emergencies. The Government Proposal had included a provision permitting compulsory expropriation of inventions by the state under emergency conditions. Parliament removed this provision, concluding that such a measure is more appropriately addressed in the ongoing reform of the Emergency Powers Act. Section 111 was instead rewritten as a procedural exception within the compulsory licensing regime, grounded in 31(b) of the TRIPS Agreement. A party seeking a compulsory licence to use a patented invention must ordinarily first attempt to negotiate a commercial licence with the patent holder; Section 111 allows this negotiation step to be waived in cases of extreme urgency involving a particularly significant public interest, such as public health, environmental protection, or security of supply. Ownership of the patent itself remains with the patent holder, who is entitled to compensation for the authorised use.  Parliament also adopted a formal statement requiring the Government to include a provision on state expropriation in the Emergency Powers Act currently under preparation.

The new Act also introduces several provisions that enhance transparency and enforcement. Section 44 creates a formal procedure for third-party observations during patent examination, allowing any party to submit comments on patentability. These observations must be communicated to the applicant but do not confer party status on the submitter. On the enforcement side, Section 131 enables courts to reinforce patent infringement injunctions with a conditional fine (in Finnish: uhkasakko) under the Coercive Fines Act. This brings patent legislation into line with Finnish trademark law, which has long allowed prohibitions to be backed by fines. Meanwhile, Section 24 now expressly prohibits post-grant claim amendments that would broaden the scope of protection, aligning Finnish law with Article 123(3) of the European Patent Convention.

Finally, the reform tidies up a number of structural features of the patent system that, while less headline-grabbing, matter for day-to-day practice. Section 70 introduces a formal mechanism for voluntary surrender of a patent, ensuring immediate legal clarity without retroactive effects. Section 59 codifies the rule that a patent holder may no longer file an opposition against its own patent, a change from the existing law under which anyone, including the holder, could do so. Section 142 extends the obligation to appoint an EEA representative to all non-EEA applicants, shifting the trigger from domicile outside Finland to domicile outside the EEA and requiring only an EEA address for the representative.

Looking Ahead

Taken together, the changes outlined above represent a modernisation of Finnish patent law. The postponement of the entry into force to 1 June 2027, some five months later than originally planned, reflects the practical reality that the Finnish Patent and Registration Office, the courts, and practitioners all need time to prepare for the scope of the changes. For companies, patent attorneys, and litigators, the coming months will be the time to assess how the new framework affects existing patent portfolios, pending applications, and litigation strategies.