Intellectual property costs are notoriously difficult to budget. Unlike most professional services, where the scope of work is defined and the cost can be estimated with reasonable confidence, IP costs depend on variables that are unknown at the outset: whether an examiner will object, whether a third party will oppose, how many countries you will eventually need to cover, and how long prosecution will take in each jurisdiction.
The result is that many businesses approach IP spending reactively — paying invoices as they arrive without a clear picture of the total cost trajectory. This makes it difficult to compare filing strategies, allocate budget effectively, or make informed decisions about where to invest and where to accept risk.
Cost scenario planning addresses this by modelling the likely costs of different filing strategies across multiple jurisdictions, including both the base costs (filing fees, professional fees) and the contingent costs (office action responses, oppositions, renewals) that may arise during the lifecycle of the right.
Every IP filing involves several cost layers that vary by jurisdiction, right type, and the complexity of the case.
Official fees. These are the fees charged by the IP office for filing, examination, registration, and renewal. Official fees are published and predictable. For an EU trademark, the filing fee is EUR 850 for one class. For a Benelux trademark, it is EUR 244. For a patent application at the European Patent Office, the filing, search, and examination fees collectively exceed EUR 5,000 before you reach the designation and validation stage. Official fees are the foundation of any cost estimate, but they are only part of the picture.
Professional fees. These are the fees charged by your attorney or IP firm for preparing and filing the application, managing prosecution, and handling any proceedings that arise. Professional fees vary by firm, jurisdiction, and complexity. In some jurisdictions, you must engage a local representative — adding an additional layer of professional fees.
Translation costs. For patents in particular, translation costs can be substantial. A European patent that is granted in English must be translated into the national language of each country where it is validated. A patent specification of 30 pages translated into German, French, Italian, Spanish, and Dutch can cost several thousand euros in translation fees alone.
Prosecution costs. If the examiner raises an objection, responding to the office action involves additional professional fees. If the objection leads to a hearing or an appeal, the costs escalate further. These costs are contingent — they may or may not arise — but they should be included in cost scenarios as a probability-weighted line item.
Opposition and cancellation costs. If a third party opposes your trademark application or you need to defend against a cancellation action, the costs of adversarial proceedings can be significant. EUIPO opposition proceedings typically cost between EUR 5,000 and EUR 15,000 in professional fees, depending on complexity, plus a EUR 320 opposition fee.
Maintenance and renewal costs. IP rights require ongoing maintenance. Trademarks must be renewed every ten years. Patents require annual annuity payments that increase over the life of the patent. Designs have their own renewal schedules. These recurring costs must be factored into any long-term budget.
A multi-jurisdiction cost scenario maps out the total expected cost of protecting an IP right across your target markets over a defined time horizon — typically five or ten years.
For a trademark, a basic scenario might model the following: filing an EUTM covering three classes (filing fees plus professional fees), the probability of an office action requiring a response (estimated at 10-15% for straightforward marks, higher for descriptive or borderline marks), the probability of opposition (estimated at 5-10% for most applications, though this varies by class and mark), renewal after ten years, and optionally, Madrid designations for non-EU markets with their own filing, examination, and designation fees.
For a patent, the scenario is more complex because the cost trajectory spans a longer period and involves more decision points: EPO filing, search, and examination fees; professional fees for drafting and prosecution; the probability of one or more office actions during examination; grant fees; validation costs in each designated country (including translation); and annual annuity payments in each validated country for the life of the patent.
The scenario should present at least two versions: a base case (smooth prosecution, no opposition, no office actions) and a realistic case (one office action, standard prosecution timeline, typical maintenance costs). For high-stakes filings, a worst case (multiple office actions, opposition, appeal) provides the upper bound.
Cost scenarios become most valuable when you use them to compare alternative filing strategies.
For trademarks, the common comparison is between a single EUTM filing versus multiple national filings. An EUTM covers 27 countries for EUR 850 in official fees. Filing individually in just three or four EU member states would cost more in total. But the EUTM has risks that national filings do not — a successful opposition or cancellation action removes protection across the entire EU, while national registrations are independent. The cost comparison should factor in this risk differential.
For patents, the comparison typically involves the EPO route versus direct national filings, and the decision about how many countries to validate the patent in. Each additional validation country adds translation and annuity costs that compound over the patent’s 20-year term. A European patent validated in ten countries costs significantly more over its lifetime than one validated in three — and the annual annuity burden grows each year.
The Unitary Patent, available since June 2023, changes this calculus for European patents by offering a single right covering all participating EU member states with a single renewal fee. Whether the Unitary Patent is more cost-effective than the traditional validation route depends on the number of countries where you need protection and the applicable translation requirements during the transitional period.
Local agent fees. In many jurisdictions, you must appoint a local agent or representative to file and prosecute IP rights. These agents charge their own professional fees, which are additional to the fees charged by your primary attorney.
Currency fluctuations. If you file in jurisdictions outside the eurozone, exchange rate movements can affect the total cost. Swiss franc-denominated WIPO fees and US dollar-denominated USPTO fees are particularly relevant for European filers.
Annuity escalation. Patent annuities in most jurisdictions increase year on year. The annuity for a European patent validated in Germany in year 3 is EUR 70; by year 20, it is EUR 1,940 — per country. The cumulative effect of escalating annuities across multiple countries is substantial and must be projected over the full patent term.
Proof of use costs. In the EU, maintaining genuine use of a trademark across the territory can involve costs that are not captured in filing estimates — particularly for businesses that do not yet have commercial presence in every EU member state.
Enforcement costs. The cost of protecting your rights once registered — monitoring, oppositions against third-party marks, cease and desist actions, and litigation — is often the largest long-term IP expense and is rarely included in initial filing budgets.
Not every market justifies the same level of IP protection. Cost planning should be guided by commercial reality: where are your products sold, where are they manufactured, where is counterfeiting most likely, and where are your competitors most active?
Filing broadly “just in case” burns budget that could be spent more effectively on deeper protection in your core markets. Conversely, under-protecting key markets to save money creates gaps that competitors and counterfeiters will exploit.
The most effective approach is to tier your markets: full protection in core markets (registration, monitoring, and enforcement), registration-only in secondary markets (with monitoring added as commercial activity grows), and no filing in markets where you have no current or planned commercial presence — with the cost savings redirected to enforcement in the markets that matter.
If you need a cost scenario for a multi-jurisdiction filing or want to review your IP budget allocation, get in touch or schedule a meeting with our team.
%402x.svg){kind=small}
%402x.svg){kind=icon}
%402x.svg){kind=icon}
