IP law in the European Union is always "on the move", and we expect this to be no different in 2026. This article outlines the most anticipated developments across all areas of IP law. From landmark cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to pivotal legislative reforms, we explore the key trends and decisions that will shape the future of IP in the EU.

Trademarks: when a trademark meets free speech

The trademark docket at the CJEU level for 2026 includes cases that push the boundaries of traditional trademark law into new territory. We expect the CJEU to hand down decisions in the following cases:

• Inter IKEA Systems v Algemeen Vlaams Belang and others presents the CJEU with a direct collision between trademark rights and political speech (Article 10 ECHR). The case raises the question whether freedom of expression and political parody can constitute "due cause" for using a sign similar to a well-known trademark under EU trademark law and what criteria courts should apply when balancing fundamental rights of intellectual property protection and free speech.
• Fauré Le Page concerns the question whether a trademark containing a fanciful date that falsely suggests the manufacturer's age, reliability and know-how is deceptive under Article 3(1)(g) EUTMD. The CJEU will have to decide if such misleading information about intangible characteristics is in itself sufficient to establish actual deceit or sufficiently serious risk of consumer deception, which would lead to invalidation.

Copyright in the digital age

The most substantial portion of the CJEU's IP docket concerns copyright law, with several cases already at advanced stages in the proceedings.

Private copying in the digital age

• This case promises much-needed clarity on how private copying levy schemes should operate across the EU. The Stichting de Thuiskopie case addresses the digital dimension: do offline streaming copies – downloaded temporarily for offline playback – fall within the private copying exception under Article 5(2)(b) of the Copyright Directive?

Sampling, satire and social media

• Pelham II returns to familiar territory, revisiting questions around sampling. The case concerns the scope of the pastiche exception under Article 5(3)(k) of the Copyright Directive. The CJEU will have to decide if pastiche is a broad category encompassing artistic engagement with pre-existing works (including sampling), or if it requires specific elements such as humour, stylistic imitation or tribute. The case also concerns the question whether pastiche requires proof of the user's intention or merely that the pastiche character be recognisable to an informed observer.

• Gândul Media Network raises questions at the intersection of copyright protection and freedom of expression. The CJEU will need to decide if a social media post expressing an opinion on inappropriate social practices can qualify as a copyright-protected work. And it will also need to decide if EU law precludes national provisions from permitting use of only short extracts – instead of an entire short work – for reporting on current events, and only where there is no commercial advantage.

Platform power and publisher rights

• Perhaps most significant for the digital economy is Meta Platforms Ireland, which addresses the responsibilities of online platforms in the copyright ecosystem. At the heart of this case is Meta Platforms Ireland challenging Italian legislation implementing Article 15 Copyright Directive on press publishers' rights. The CJEU will have to decide if EU member states can impose remuneration obligations on online platforms beyond the exclusive rights granted by Article 15, require platforms to negotiate and disclose data to publishers and regulators, and empower regulators to set compensation rates and sanctions or if such measures breach the freedom to conduct business, competition principles and proportionality.

• The cases of Austro-Mechana and AKM and VG Wort both concern collective management organisations and their evolving role in the digital environment. The first case queries if online platforms storing user-uploaded works perform separate acts of reproduction requiring independent authorisation, or if this is covered by their communication to the public licences under Article 17 Digital Single Market (DSM) Directive. The case is also expected to clarify whether rightholders can split reproduction and communication rights between different collecting societies.
• At the centre of the second case, VG Wort, is whether collecting societies can use levy funds to promote cultural works benefiting non-rightholders, and whether cultural services under the Collective Rights Management (CRM) Directive require that recipients have current remuneration entitlements or management agreements.

Communication without borders

• Anne Frank Fonds, referred by the Dutch Supreme Court in November 2024, addresses the territorial scope of online communications in an era of geo-blocking and VPN services. The CJEU will need to decide whether geo-blocking prevents communication to the public in a blocked country if users can circumvent it via VPN services, and whether the publisher remains liable despite the intervening role of VPN providers. The answers will have significant implications for how rightholders can control territorial exploitation of works online. For more information, read the Advocate-General's opinion and see our previous article on this case.

• VHC 2 Seniorenresidenz raises the question whether a retirement home's retransmission of satellite broadcasts to residents' rooms via cable constitutes communication to a "new public" requiring separate authorisation, and whether the "new public" test applies if the same technical means are used.
• The Institutul G. Călinescu case raises questions that go to the heart of copyright protection: whether a critical edition of a work – comprising an authoritative text established from manuscript sources with commentary and critical apparatus – qualifies for copyright protection as an original work under the Copyright Directive. The answer is expected to affect scholarly publishing across the EU.

Patents: UPC on the rise and reforms ahead

2026 promises to be a busy year for patent litigation, with an increasing body of case law from the Unified Patent Court, which has quickly established itself as the go-to patent court in Europe. No doubt the UPC will develop positions on important undecided issues. Will we, for example, see UPC Court of Appeal decisions on matters such as equivalence, file wrapper estoppel and auxiliary requests this year? Guidance is eagerly awaited! Also, we expect the impact of the BSH judgment on cross-border injunctions to continue.

The CJEU's patent docket is represented by:

• Halozyme, which concerns the definition of "active ingredient" for supplementary protection certificates (SPCs). The CJEU will have to decide if a substance designated as an excipient in a marketing authorisation can qualify as an active ingredient if its own therapeutic effect is included in the therapeutic indications. The case also raises the question whether an SPC can cover a combination of two active ingredients if the basic patent only specifically claims one of them but mentions potential combinations with other categories of substances. The answers are expected to affect the scope of SPC protection available for combination medicinal products.

Legislative reform proposals

A number of EU proposals to reform several regimes are in progress:

• The European Commission withdrew the much-debated 2023 proposal for a new regulation on standard essential patents (SEPs) in October 2025, stating that there was no foreseeable agreement between the European Parliament and the Council. In November 2025, the European Parliament voted in favour of requesting the European Court of Justice to annul that withdrawal decision. So the political and legal battle over SEP licensing reform continues, with the Parliament challenging the Commission's abandonment of legislation that had sparked considerable controversy since its introduction. For further information, see also our previous article.
• In addition, four proposals from 2023 covering significant reforms to the regime for Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) – which include creating a Unitary Supplementary Protection Certificate (USPC) and introduce a centralised granting procedure for both medicinal and plant protection products, in line with the Unitary Patent system – are still proceeding through the legislative process. Since their adoption by the European Parliament in 2024, the proposals have been pending at the Council, which has not yet reached a common position.
• More recently, in December 2025, the European Council and Parliament reached an agreement on the Pharma Package and the European Commission published its proposal for the European Biotech Act.
  The Pharma Package, consisting of a new regulation and a new directive, aims to reform the EU pharmaceutical legislation, increasing patients' access to medicine and making the EU pharmaceutical sector fairer and more competitive. It includes an expanded Bolar exemption, allowing generic and biosimilar manufacturers to take certain steps (such as studies or trials) so generic versions can launch shortly after patent or SPC expiry.
• The Biotech Act proposal establishes a framework to strengthen the EU's biotechnology and biomanufacturing sectors, particularly in the area of health. The act introduces seven pillars to accelerate time-to-market and competitiveness, including recognition of strategic projects, improved access to funding, AI integration, future-proof regulatory tools, enhanced biosimilars competitiveness, biosecurity measures and legislative simplifications. Notable IP elements include a 12-month SPC extension for certain best-in-class biotechnology medicines and advanced therapy medicinal products, alongside streamlined regulatory pathways for biosimilars and AI-enabled biotech. The proposed act also simplifies risk assessment, enables regulatory sandboxes and reduces duplications in GMO requirements for clinical trials.

There is also news about the 2023 proposal for a regulation on compulsory patent licensing for crisis management. This regulation has been formally adopted by the European Parliament and Council, and it entered into force on 19 January 2026. The new regulation establishes a harmonised EU-wide framework enabling the Commission to grant Union-compulsory licences covering patents, supplementary protection certificates and utility models if EU crisis or emergency modes are activated.

Design law reform enters phase 2

In 2026, phase 2 of the EU design legislative reform will take place. The reform package, which comprises a recast directive and an amended regulation, came into force on 8 December 2024 and aims to modernise the current design protection framework. The amended EU Designs Regulation (EUDR), is rolled out in two stages. Most of the new rules took effect on 1 May 2025 (phase one), with the remaining provisions scheduled to apply from 1 July 2026 (phase two). These remaining provisions consist of amendments to be introduced by secondary legislation (implementing and delegated regulations), including reform of the registration and priority procedures, new requirements for the transfer of registered designs, reformed invalidity declaration procedures and an updated fee schedule.

In addition, EU member states are required to transpose the recast EU Designs Directive into their national legislation by 9 December 2027.

AI Act: key IP implications

Several provisions of the EU AI Act are already in force, but most provisions will start to apply on 2 August 2026 (although this date may be extended by the proposed Digital Omnibus for AI Regulation). From an IP perspective, the most immediate impact will be felt by general purpose AI (GPAI) model providers. They will have to demonstrate compliance with EU copyright law – particularly by respecting Article 4(3) DSM Directive optouts for rightholders when using text and datamining for training.

For high-risk AI systems, the AI Act introduces significant supply chain transparency obligations: component suppliers must provide enough technical information for downstream providers to meet compliance duties, while the act simultaneously requires strong protection of trade secrets and proprietary knowhow. Providers must also retain detailed technical documentation for ten years after market placement.

A key element of tension for IP holders lies in the AI Act’s enhanced oversight powers. Market surveillance authorities may request source code access, but only as a last resort when other testing methods are insufficient and only where strictly necessary. This balance between regulatory transparency and protection of proprietary algorithms will be central to compliance planning in 2026.

Database rights and the data economy

In September 2025, a regulation on harmonised rules on fair access to and use of data, also known as the European Data Act, started to apply. It affects certain holders of data in databases, as it limits the scope of the Database Directive for machine-generated data. The Database Directive provides for a sui generis database right, which is a special right granted to database creators to prevent extraction and reuse of substantial parts of their databases. The data-access obligations resulting from Article 3(1) will apply to connected products and to related services entering the market after 12 September 2026.

Deepfakes: a patchwork of protection

In 2026, deepfake governance within the EU will be shaped primarily by the 's transparency obligations, which might become operational on 2 August 2026 (see above). From that date, providers of AI systems capable of generating synthetic media – including audio-visual deepfakes – must ensure outputs are clearly marked as artificially generated, and deployers must inform individuals when they are interacting with AI rather than with a human.

At the same time, a layered regulatory landscape is emerging as several EU member states supplement the EU framework with national initiatives. Denmark has introduced pioneering legislation granting individuals exclusive rights over the use of their face and voice, while in the Netherlands, legislation on neighbouring rights on deepfakes of individuals has been proposed and was open for public consultation until 31 December 2025.

Geographical indications go industrial

The EU regulation on geographical indication (GI) protection for craft and industrial products (CIGIR) entered into force in 2023 and has been applicable law since 1 December 2025. It establishes an EU-level system for protecting the names of European craft and industrial products across the entire EU. By 2 December 2026, the national systems for GI protection for craft and industrial products must cease to exist, with member states having to notify the Commission and EUIPO which legally protected names they wish to register under the CIGIR. Additionally, by 2 June 2026, the Commission must evaluate the feasibility of an information and alert system against abusive use of GIs in domain name systems and submit a report to the European Parliament and Council, potentially accompanied by a legislative proposal.

Greenwashing: the end of vague environmental claims

The Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (ECGT Directive) entered into force in March 2024. EU countries will have to transpose this directive into their national law by 27 March 2026, with the rules applying from 27 September 2026. The ECGT directive aims to ensure that consumers receive better and more harmonised information on product durability and reparability before purchase. Vague environmental claims will be prohibited. For further details, read our 2025 article on green claims here.

Packaging and packaging waste

The Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) entered into force in 2025, with most provisions applying from 12 August 2026. The PPWR introduces new EU-level rules aimed at reducing packaging waste and promoting sustainability. The new packaging standards will have significant implications for packaging designs. Article 10 provides an IP exception for certain distinctive packaging already protected by a design or trademark right, as well as for packaged products benefiting from a geographical indication or quality scheme.

Looking ahead

2026 will clearly be an important year for intellectual property law in the EU. With landmark CJEU rulings and significant legislative reforms ahead, staying informed will be essential. Our team of IP experts is directly involved in several of the high-stakes matters mentioned above, giving us valuable insight into the developments ahead. If you would like more details or background on any of the topics discussed, please contact one of us.