During martial law, many intellectual property owners were faced with a practical problem: what happens if a patent expires during this period?

Do property rights terminate automatically, or does Law of Ukraine No. 2174-IX only suspend the procedural deadlines for performing certain actions

For many companies, patents are one of the key intangible assets. That is why the answer to this question has not only theoretical, but also direct practical significance..

In a ruling dated April 30, 2026, the Supreme Court clearly answered this question for the first time and formulated a legal position that may have implications for many patent owners..

The company went to court after the Ukrainian National Office of Intellectual Property and Innovation (UKRNOIVI) refused state registration of additional patent protection for an invention.

The position of the government agency was simple. According to UKRNOIVI, the patent expired in March 2023, that is, after the expiration of twenty years established by law. Accordingly, at the time of filing the application for additional protection in 2025, the patent no longer existed, and therefore there were no grounds for granting additional protection.

The company, in turn, referred to Law of Ukraine No. 2174-IX, which was adopted after the outbreak of a full-scale war.

In her opinion, since the patent expired precisely during martial law, proprietary intellectual property rights continued to remain in force until the termination or lifting of martial law. It was this issue that became the subject of consideration by the Supreme Court.

The defendant’s main argument was that Law No. 2174-IX regulates exclusively procedural deadlines. That is, it allows patent owners to file an application, pay a fee, or perform other necessary actions after the end of martial law.

However, according to UKRNOVI, this Law does not extend the validity period of the proprietary intellectual property rights themselves..

In other words, after a twenty-year period, the patent automatically lapses regardless of whether martial law is in effect or not..

Courts of all levels supported the plaintiff, and the Supreme Court finally agreed with this approach. The court's key findings deserve special attention:.

Law No. 2174-IX applies not only to procedural deadlines. The most important conclusion of the resolution is precisely this. The Supreme Court noted that Law No. 2174-IX expressly provides for the continuation of proprietary intellectual property rights that expire during martial law.

That is, we are talking not only about postponing the deadlines for filing documents or performing procedural actions. It was this approach that became the key to resolving the entire case..

The patent does not automatically expire Since the patent expired during martial law, it could not be considered terminated after the standard twenty-year period..

The Supreme Court expressly stated that proprietary intellectual property rights remain in force until the day following the date of termination or lifting of martial law. Thus, the formal expiration of the term in itself does not mean the termination of rights.

The right to subsidiary protection is also retained Since the patent remained in force, its owner did not lose the opportunity to apply for a certificate of supplementary protection. The Supreme Court also drew attention to the fact that additional protection is compensatory in nature.

In the field of pharmaceutical inventions, the actual use of a patent is often possible only after many years of state registration of the drug. That is why the legislation provides for a mechanism for extending the protection of such inventions..

The Supreme Court's ruling is of practical importance primarily for those owners of patents whose validity expired after the introduction of martial law. The legal position of the Supreme Court allows us to draw several important practical conclusions.

Firstly, the mere fact of expiration of the statutory term of a patent during martial law does not mean the automatic termination of proprietary intellectual property rights.

Secondly, government authorities cannot rely solely on the formal expiration of the patent if Law No. 2174-IX is applicable to the case..

Thirdly, patent owners received an additional argument in disputes about the possibility of exercising rights dependent on the validity of the patent, in particular about obtaining additional protection.

At the same time, this resolution does not automatically resolve any disputes in the field of intellectual property. In each specific case, it is necessary to take into account the type of object of intellectual property rights, special legislation and the peculiarities of the relevant legal relations.

Before the adoption of this resolution, the practice of applying Law No. 2174-IX remained controversial.

Some believed that it only “freezes” the deadlines for performing certain procedural actions.

Others proceeded from the fact that the legislator pursued the goal of ensuring the continuity of protection of proprietary intellectual property rights themselves.

The Supreme Court actually supported the second approach.

This is important because other rights of the patent owner may depend on the duration of the patent, not just the possibility of obtaining additional protection.

Supreme Court ruling goes far beyond a dispute over a single pharmaceutical patent.

In fact, for the first time at the cassation level, the Court clearly explained that the Law of Ukraine No. 2174-IX applies not only to the time frame for performing procedural actions, but also to the validity period of the property intellectual property rights themselves.

In other words, if a patent expires during martial law, this fact in itself does not mean the termination of proprietary intellectual property rights.

In fact, the Supreme Court confirmed the fundamental idea: martial law should not deprive the owner of a patent of his rights only due to the expiration of a calendar period, if the law expressly provides for their preservation. It is this legal conclusion that will most likely become a guideline for resolving further disputes regarding the application of Law of Ukraine No. 2174-IX and will contribute to the formation of a more predictable practice of protecting intellectual property rights under martial law.