On 30 April 2026, the Supreme Court of Ukraine delivered a landmark judgment, providing its first interpretation of Law concerning the protection of intellectual property rights during martial law and the possibility of extending patent protection through supplementary protection certificates.
The decision clarifies how patent terms should be treated when they expire during martial law and may have significant implications for pharmaceutical and biotechnology patent owners in Ukraine.
Background of the Dispute
The case concerned Ukrainian Patent No. 85536, owned by a Belgian pharmaceutical company, relating to the invention “Viral Antigens.” The patent covered technology used in connection with the HPV vaccine Gardasil 9.
The patent application was filed on 17 March 2003, and the patent was granted on 10 February 2009. Under Ukrainian law, the standard patent term was 20 years from the filing date, meaning that the patent was scheduled to expire on 17 March 2023.
Because the invention concerned an active pharmaceutical ingredient, the patent owner was entitled under Ukrainian patent legislation to seek supplementary protection to compensate for the period between filing the patent application and obtaining regulatory approval for the medicinal product.
In May 2025, the company applied to the Ukrainian National Office for Intellectual Property and Innovations (UKRNOIVI) for an extension of patent protection and the issuance of a supplementary protection certificate.
UKRNOIVI rejected the request, arguing that the patent had already expired on 17 March 2023 and therefore no valid rights existed that could be extended.
Court Proceedings
The patent owner challenged the refusal in court, relying on Law, which introduced special wartime measures aimed at preserving intellectual property rights during martial law.
Both the first-instance court and the appellate court ruled in favor of the claimant. The courts concluded that the patent remained valid under the wartime legislation and confirmed the company’s right to obtain an additional five-year period of protection.
UKRNOIVI subsequently appealed the case to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Position
The Supreme Court noted that it had not previously considered the application of Law in the context of patent term extensions and supplementary protection certificates.
Examining the relevant legislation, the Court confirmed that Ukrainian patent law has long provided patent owners with the possibility of extending protection for inventions requiring regulatory authorization, particularly pharmaceutical and agrochemical products.
The Court explained that supplementary protection serves to compensate patent holders for the period spent obtaining marketing authorization from competent authorities and may extend protection for up to five additional years beyond the standard twenty-year patent term.
A central issue in the case was whether Law applied to patent terms that expired during martial law.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the law expressly provides that intellectual property rights whose validity expires during martial law remain in force until the day following the termination or cancellation of martial law.
According to the Court, the provisions of Law are mandatory and constitute rules of direct application. The legislation applies broadly to all categories of intellectual property rights and does not contain any exclusions for patents.
As a result, the Court rejected UKRNOIVI’s argument that the law did not affect patent terms.
Since the disputed patent was due to expire on 17 March 2023, while martial law remained in force, the patent continued to be valid under the special wartime regime and could not be considered terminated.
Practical Implications
The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the decisions of the lower courts and confirmed the patent owner’s right to seek supplementary protection despite the original patent term having expired during martial law.
The judgment establishes an important precedent for Ukrainian patent law. It confirms that patents whose terms expire during martial law remain valid under Law and that patent holders retain the ability to exercise rights connected with those patents, including the right to apply for supplementary protection where statutory requirements are met.
The ruling is likely to be particularly relevant for pharmaceutical and agrochemical companies whose patents approached expiration during the wartime period and may influence future disputes concerning the preservation and extension of intellectual property rights in Ukraine.