Finland’s New Patents Act: Key Amendments

The Finnish Parliament approved a new Patents Act on 19 May 2026. The new Act will replace the current Patents Act (550/1967) in its entirety. It modernises the national patent law framework by clarifying its provisions and better aligning it with European patent regulations. To this end, the new Act introduces a range of technical and substantive amendments, including:

When compared with the Government Bill submitted to Parliament on 29 January 2026 (see our previous article, Finland’s New Patents Act: The Government Bill and Key Changes), Parliament introduced a number of amendments (EV 58/2026 vp), the most significant of which concerns the replacement of compulsory expropriation by a TRIPS-based urgency exception.

The Government Bill included a provision enabling the state to compulsorily acquire a patent or patent application where such acquisition is in the public interest. This provision was replaced by Parliament with a so-called urgency exception based on Article 31(b) of the TRIPS Agreement. The exception allows compulsory licences to be granted without the otherwise required prior attempts to obtain authorisation on reasonable commercial terms in cases of extreme urgency where there is a particularly significant public interest at stake. Parliament simultaneously adopted a statement requiring the Government to include a provision on compulsory expropriation of an invention in the Emergency Powers Act currently under reform. This reflects the view that compulsory expropriation is an appropriate emergency measure but belongs within the framework of the Emergency Powers Act rather than the Patents Act.

Parliament also introduced a number of technical amendments to clarify the provisions on the scope of the exclusive right conferred by a patent, compulsory licenses for dependent inventions, as well as clarity and conciseness requirements for amended patent claims.

The new Patents Act was originally expected to enter into force on 1 January 2027. However, Parliament considered it appropriate to delay the entry into force by approximately six months from the original estimate. This was because it was deemed important that both the Utility Model Act and the Act on Inventions of Importance to the Defence of the Country – both of which are also currently under legislative reform – enter into force simultaneously to facilitate implementation at the Finnish Patent and Registration Office. The entry into force date therefore remains open, with mid-2027 being the most likely timeframe.

Partial invalidation replaces court limitation

The new Patents Act introduces an explicit statutory provision on partial invalidation (Section 113(2)) and at the same time abolishes the current limitation procedure under Section 52(2) of the Patents Act. The new provision addresses a longstanding uncertainty in the current legislation under which both limitation and partial invalidation have in practice been applied in parallel.

Under the new provision, a patent proprietor may seek partial invalidation before the Market Court during invalidity proceedings. This means that if the grounds for patent invalidation concern only part of the patent, the Court may, at the proprietor's request, limit the scope of the patent by amending the claims in accordance with the proprietor's proposal. The patent claims can be amended, for example, by removing certain claims or reformulating claims based on the description. The purpose of the provision is to give the proprietor the opportunity to defend against an invalidity action by modifying the patent claims during the proceedings. Any amended claims must be narrower than the original patent claims and correspond to the grounds for invalidity invoked by the claimant, and the patent as amended must continue to satisfy the requirements for validity.

Whilst the practical effects of the amendment are likely to remain minor for individual parties, given that partial invalidation has already been applied under general civil procedure, the clarification it brings to the legal framework is expected to improve procedural efficiency. Moreover, the provision confirms that the Market Court may not partially invalidate a patent on its own initiative, but only upon the request of the patent proprietor, thereby resolving a previously unsettled issue.

Restricting the submission of new patent claim sets during appeal proceedings

To streamline court proceedings, the new Patents Act introduces a new procedural provision restricting the submission of new patent claim sets during appeal proceedings. Under established case law, patent proprietors are currently allowed to submit new patent claim sets during appeal proceedings, thereby transforming the appeal process into an extension of the patent granting procedure.

Whilst the underlying policy objective received positive feedback during consultation, the formulation of the provision was criticised for deviating from the general administrative procedural law. The provision would have required appeals to be directed at specific facts, requests, arguments and evidence underlying the appealed decision.

Section 121 of the new Patents Act allows the submission of new patent claim sets only for a valid reason. An example of a valid reason provided in the Government Bill is where the appeal concerns a decision by the Finnish Patent and Registration Office in an opposition matter and the opponent presents new grounds for opposition to the court.

Express provision on natural person inventorship

The reform introduces an express provision clarifying that an inventor must be a natural person. This codifies existing practice and provides clarity in the context of increasing use of artificial intelligence and automated systems in research and development processes.

During the drafting process of the new Act, a provision was considered that would have allowed inventors to waive their right to be named as an inventor in certain circumstances. However, following consultation feedback, this provision was ultimately removed from the Government Bill. The removal was based on a concern that the provision would have been impractical to apply given the Patent and Registration Office’s limited capacity to verify whether the criteria were met in individual cases.

Amendments regarding injunctions

Unlike the Trademark Act, the current Patents Act does not enable the court to impose a conditional fine in support of a patent infringement injunction. The reform introduces a new provision enabling courts to impose patent infringement injunctions subject to a fine, as governed by the Act on Conditional Fines (1113/1990). The action to have the fine imposed can be brought by the claimant claiming the injunction.

For further information on how these changes might affect your business, please reach out to us.